24. Full information and training on these matters are particularly important given the Guidance’s implicit reliance on a very wide range of UK personnel having the ability to detect, judge and assess the degree of risk as to whether an individual will be subject to torture or CIDTP and whether torture or CIDTP has taken place. 25. We recommend that the ISC seek clarification as to whether relevant personnel also receive training to allow them to appreciate the limitations of techniques for detecting torture or CIDTP. This is of particular relevance in situations where ‘non-physical’ techniques may be used, such as sensory deprivation, humiliating treatment or threats and intimidation. Even where access exists to places of detention and prisoners to monitor their treatment, detection techniques may be able to uncover some evidence of torture in some cases and establish that it is occurring; but a failure to detect torture does not necessarily prove that no torture is occurring. UNSOLICITED INTELLIGENCE 26. The Guidance seems to imply that unsolicited intelligence received by the UK government can be used unless there is a good reason presented as to why it should not be used, in which case a number of steps of possible action are provided (Paragraphs 27-28). Amnesty International considers that in relation to those countries where it is already well-established that the intelligence agencies systematically use torture or other ill-treatment to obtain information, whether generally or from particular categories of detainee, (for example Syria or Uzbekistan), the proper approach would be for UK personnel to presume that information from such agencies is the product of torture, unless there exists good reason to the contrary. PUBLICATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND RESPONSES 27. We note that the ISC has received replies from the intelligence agencies to the 27 points raised by the Detainee Inquiry report and the views of the Intelligence Service Commissioner on current compliance with the Guidance. We call on you to make these replies public to the fullest extent possible. 28. We confirm that we have no objection to this document being published by the ISC and note that we intend to make the document publicly available through our website. 29. The principal point of contact for further information about this submission is Kartik Raj, Researcher, EU Team, Amnesty International (Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW, email: UK-SHR@amnesty.org, fax: 020 7956 1157). NOTES 1 See for instance in the Grand Chamber case Saadi v Italy, Application no. 37201/06, judgment of 28 February 2008 “Crown servants should be aware that they are subject to English criminal law in respect of their actions in the course of their duties overseas.” (Paragraph 13). 3 All of these aspects have been confirmed in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. 4 See, e.g., UN Convention against Torture, article 2(3); ICRC Study of Customary International Humanitarian Law, Rules 154 and 155. Human Rights Committee, General Comment no 20 (1992), para 3 5 Committee against Torture, General Comment Number 2, paragraph 3. 2 EUR 45/012/2014 6 31 October 2014