UK Parliament

UK: No evidence of intimidation or harassment in the Camp Ashraf

Iraq: Camp Ashraf
Column 604

Asked By Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
UK: No evidence of intimidation or harassment in the Camp Ashraf
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to defend the human rights of Iranian refugees at Camp Ashraf; and with what other countries or agencies they are involved in those efforts.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): My Lords, officials at our embassy in Baghdad and at the Foreign Office follow developments at Camp Ashraf closely. We have raised Camp Ashraf with the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Human Rights Minister, the Minister of Internal Affairs and, recently, my ministerial colleague Ivan Lewis with the Foreign Minister, to remind them of the need to deal with the residents in a way which meets international humanitarian standards. We are in contact with international partners and UN agencies. Camp Ashraf is part of a sovereign and democratic Iraq and is primarily an issue for the Iraqi authorities to address.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Do they care that currently Camp Ashraf residents are being denied food, medicine and winter fuel, and live under a real threat of being moved by Nouri al-Maliki’s troops-

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: I can confirm that we consistently remind the Iraqi Government of all their international obligations on this matter. The Iraqi Ministers confirm that the Government are in discussions with the camp leadership and that they will treat the people in the camp in line with international humanitarian law. There is absolutely no evidence of the kind of intimidation and harassment which the noble Lord has described. Indeed, the access to food and medicines, to clean water and medical supplies, clearly exists. There have been some disruptions to supplies entering the camp, but I understand that all those have been resolved.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: Does my noble friend accept that to deliver the refugees into the hands of the Iranian regime would, for some of them at least, be the equivalent of a death sentence? Does she further accept that the attack on Camp Ashraf by Iraqi forces in July, leaving 11 dead, establishes that it cannot safely be left in Iraqi hands? Is this not a matter that we should discuss with our American allies?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: I can assure my noble and learned friend that these matters are regularly raised by our ambassador and others with the United Nations and with the authorities in Iraq. It is the long-stated wish of the Iraqi authorities to close the camp and transfer the residents, but they have given us clear assurances, most recently at a meeting on 27 January, that they will do that in line with international and humanitarian law and that no Ashraf residents will be forcibly transferred to a country where they have reason to fear persecution or where substantial grounds exist to believe that they could be tortured.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is very important that we should be clear about the responsibility for this matter? Is it not right that back on 13 April last year, our ambassador in Baghdad called on the Iraqi Minister to seek new assurances that the residents of Ashraf would be treated humanely? Was that not an acknowledgement of the British Government’s responsibility for the welfare of the people of Ashraf? Indeed, how can the British Government avoid their responsibility for the welfare of the people of Ashraf when, first, they were a party to the invasion of-

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: I thank the noble Lord for the questions. I can assure him, as I did in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that Iraq is a sovereign and democratic state and, as such, has that responsibility. It has never been the case that the UK has responsibility for the residents in the camp. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, the UK works with the United States and the United Nations to ensure that the rights of the residents of Camp Ashraf are protected.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that these people are not non-protected persons under the Geneva Convention? If that is correct, do the Iraqis have the right to deal with them within internal Iraqi constitutional law? Have the results of the inquiry come out yet?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: The view of the UK Government is that with the formal end of hostilities and the transfer of responsibility for the camp to the Iraqi authorities, any claim to protected person status by the camp’s residents under the fourth Geneva Convention has ceased to apply. That view is shared by the United Nations. The camp leadership have been given that information. As for the inquiry into the violence that occurred in July, we asked for a review of the events that took place. The ambassador met the Minister responsible on 27 January and reminded him of the need to send a copy of the report. We are still waiting to receive it. I will urge the ambassador to press again for a response from the Government.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, how does the Minister square her statement to the House that there is no evidence that the residents of Camp Ashraf are at risk with the statement from Amnesty International that they are at risk of,
"arbitrary arrest, torture or other forms of ill-treatment, and unlawful killing"?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I can only reiterate what my noble friend Lord Brett said in the answer that he gave to that question. We have no evidence of intimidation or harassment in the camp. I am aware of the Amnesty International report. The recent UN mission reported that the camp is calm and that the residents have access to food, water and medical supplies. We have no evidence of intimidation, harassment and the other issues raised by Amnesty International.

House of Lords – 9 February 2010

April 17, 2010 0 comment

UK: It is in the interest of Ashraf residents to cooperate with Iraq

David Drew (Stroud, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the government of Iraq on the situation in Camp Ashraf; and if he will take steps to ensure that residents of Camp Ashraf are not driven from Iraq.

Ivan Lewis (Minister of State (Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Bury South, Labour)

We have discussed the situation at Camp Ashraf with the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Human Rights Minister, the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Iraqi Government’s Ashraf Committee. I met the Iraqi Foreign Minister in Baghdad in December 2009 and underlined the need for the Iraqi authorities to deal with the residents of Camp Ashraf in a way that meets international humanitarian standards. In addition we discuss the issue with the UN, US, and the EU.

The Iraqi authorities have told the residents that they can no longer stay at Camp Ashraf but has given assurances that no residents will be forcibly transferred to a country where they have reason to fear persecution, or where substantial grounds exist to believe they would be tortured. The Iraqi Human Rights Minister confirmed to our ambassador on 27 January 2010 that the Government of Iraq would deal with the residents of the camp with respect for their human rights in co-operation with the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross. We believe it is in the interests of the residents to respect and accept the decision made by the Government of Iraq, and to cooperate peacefully with the Iraqi authorities.

House of Commons

March 27, 2010 0 comment

Mojahedin Khalq lobby clutching at straws

Written answers and statements, 13 January 2010

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Crossbench)
To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead on 16 December 2009 (WA 246), whether their position on alleged injustices against residents at Camp Ashraf by the Iraqi authorities takes account of their representations to the Government of China in the case of Akmal Shaikh

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The UK opposes the death penalty and takes action in all cases to try to prevent UK nationals being executed. Akmal Shaikh was the first EU/British national to be executed in China in 50 years. Twenty-seven high level representations were made to the Chinese authorities dating back to November 2008 by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers. The basis for these representations mainly centred on Mr Shaikh’s mental health. Mr Shaikh’s mental health was a crucial aspect of evidence that the Government believed the courts should have considered before they delivered the sentence.

Camp Ashraf is part of a sovereign and democratic Iraq and the situation there is a matter for the Government of Iraq. We regularly discuss Camp Ashraf with the Iraqi Government, including with the Iraqi Prime Minister and Ministers for Human Rights, Internal Affairs and Foreign Affairs. We continue to underline the need for the Iraqi authorities to deal with the residents of Camp Ashraf in a way that meets international standards.
There is no link between the two issues.

House of Lords, London

January 16, 2010 0 comment

Britain says MKO in Camp Ashraf subject to Iraqi law

Britain says MKO in Camp Ashraf subject to Iraqi law – protected persons status not applicable

Iraq: Iran Britain says MKO in Camp Ashraf subject to Iraqi law - protected persons status not applicable

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Written answers and statements, 25 November 2009
Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department’s assessment is of the status in international law of the residents of Camp Ashraf, Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

Ivan Lewis (Minister of State (Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Bury South, Labour)

Camp Ashraf is in a sovereign and democratic Iraq and the camp residents subject to its laws.

The UK is of the view that the residents of Camp Ashraf, as with all people in Iraq, enjoy rights and protections under the Iraqi constitution and applicable international obligations to which Iraq is a signatory. We do not consider that they have ‘protected persons’ status.

We do not feel a ministerial statement is necessary at this time.

House of Lords, London

November 30, 2009 0 comment

MEK Camp Ashraf

Saddamist lobby’s lies exposed in U.K. parliament

[Iran-Interlink – The MKO do not have Protected Persons status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The group has no legal status in Iraq. The U.N. has refused to give them refugee status in Iraq.

The Government of Iraq has stated that the relocation of the 3,400 MKO members in Camp Ashraf to a place distant from Iran’s borders is necessary for their safety. The MKO has violently resisted any attempts to enforce Iraqi law inside the camp.]

Iraq: Camp Ashraf — Question

All Lords debates on 23 Nov 2009

Saddamist lobby’s lies exposed in U.K. parliament
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale (Labour)
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Iraq about their threat to use force to relocate 3,400 Iranian dissident refugees at Camp Ashraf to elsewhere in Iraq.

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, we encourage the Iraqi authorities and the Camp Ashraf leadership to find a lasting and acceptable solution for the future of the residents. We have relayed this message to the Iraqi Government at the highest levels, including to the Iraqi Prime Minister. Camp Ashraf is in a sovereign and democratic Iraq and, ultimately, decisions on the future location of the camp are for the Iraqi Government to resolve.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale (Labour)
Will my noble friend confirm that the United Kingdom supports the views of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, the ICRC and the UNHCR that it would further breach international humanitarian law if Iraq carried out its threat to again use violent force against defenceless Iranian refugees at Ashraf, so adding to the toll of 11 dead and hundreds injured in its July assault? Will the Government join efforts to persuade Iraq to accept a UN monitoring force at Ashraf to help talks between Iraq and the residents on their future to continue in a calm atmosphere?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, in light of the tragic deaths of 11 people and many others injured at Camp Ashraf on 20 July, the Government have raised the issue with the Iraqi Government seeking a review of the event. We also raised the question of a UN presence in the camp.

That was acceded to in discussions between the PMOI and the Government of Iraq and is now established, with a mission that is monitoring human rights and the humanitarian situation at Camp Ashraf, liaising with American and Iraqi counterparts as well as with the PMOI, regularly reporting on the situation to the SRSG and the OHCHR in Geneva, and assessing the possibilities and the presence of enabling conditions by the GoI-the Government of Iraq-for a later deployment of UNHCR staff and other actions as required.

Lord Waddington (Conservative)
Perhaps the noble Lord can help on this. Did Her Majesty’s Government make representations to the Iraqi authorities about the blockade of Ashraf, subsequent to the attack in July, and about the outrageous situation in which the authorities prevented even doctors from entering the camp to look after people who had been injured in the attack, or are Her Majesty’s Government washing their hands of the whole matter and saying that they no longer have any real responsibility for the people of Ashraf as protected persons under the Geneva conventions? If it is the view of Her Majesty’s Government that they have no responsibility in that regard, how did they come to that conclusion?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
I refer the noble Lord to an answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, when I dealt with the whole question of the immunities that people believe exist but which do not exist in relation to Camp Ashraf. It is in sovereign Iraqi territory-a democratic state.

On the other hand, we do not resile at all from trying to ensure that humanitarian conditions exist and that assurances are kept that no one will be transferred from that camp to a country in which their lives are in danger. In that sense, we are clear about the issue. We are less clear about accusations, for which we have no independent authoritative evidence from the UN or anywhere else, that people are being prevented from having medicines and other things. If there is any hard evidence, I would be more than delighted to refer it to my Foreign Office colleagues for investigation.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Liberal Democrat)
Why is no European nation, or North America, willing to accept any of the residents of Camp Ashraf? May it have something to do with their previous activities? Is the Minister absolutely determined either to prove that the Camp Ashraf residents cannot return to the Islamic Republic of Iran or to press European nations to bring them out? What responsibility do the Iraqi Government have to keep these former enemies of the Iraqi people?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The noble Baroness raises a question that has undoubtedly been the subject of considerable discussion in Iraq. People in the camp probably find no favour in the country from which they came and little favour in the country of their adoption, given their previous adherence to the regime that has now been removed. The short answer is that no one outside the country seems to show any great enthusiasm for bringing in people in Camp Ashraf. Many of them may be innocent, but there are people in that camp with a clear history of attacks in Iran-attacks which they may have now abandoned-that makes them unpopular in that country and of support for a dictator that makes them equally unpopular in Iraq.

Baroness Turner of Camden (Labour)
My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that these people have protected person status under United Nations law? That being so, would it not be possible to persuade EU countries to provide these people with refuge? These are genuine refugees who deserve protection.

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
Alas, it is not the case that people in Camp Ashraf have protected person status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. That has ceased to apply. That view is shared by the United Nations, the Government of Iraq, the United States and us. It is a mistake to believe that there is international protection for these individuals. However, that does not mean that we should abandon them to be subject to inhuman treatment or to be transferred to regimes in countries where their lives would be in danger.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I appreciate the clarification provided by the Minister regarding the status of these people in Camp Ashraf. However, in light of the Iraqi Government’s pledge that these people will not be forcibly repatriated to Iran, have Her Majesty’s Government been in any discussions with the Iraqi Government as to whether they might be given political asylum in this country?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
As I said, the UK Government have no locus in Iraq in relation to these people. The discussions have been held internationally through the United States, which had control prior to the ending of the Geneva Convention status. That status was given in the first place only because the Americans chose to accept and adopt it, rather than because there was any international obligation. It is clear that there is no nation-alas, it might be said-for these individuals outside the country that they are in, albeit that they are very reluctantly accepted; no other country is prepared to give residence status to them.

Lord Dholakia (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, following the violence that was perpetrated on residents of Camp Ashraf, Members of the House of Lords met the Minister, Ivan Lewis, who promised to make representations when he visited Iraq and to convey our concern. The Minister has given the answer in relation to making representations, but what was the response of the Iraqi Government?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The Iraqi Government agreed to put in place an inquiry, the results of which we do not know. My ministerial colleague Ivan Lewis will visit Iraq in December and will no doubt keep the promise that he made to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and colleagues to raise this issue at the highest level.

Lord Elton (Conservative)
My Lords, there are many settlements around the world of people who are unwelcome in the country from which they have fled and unwelcome in the country to which they have fled. The United Nations does a considerable job in getting them settled in third countries. What steps are we taking to assist that effort in this case?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
The United Nations is seeking a solution to the problem but, as I hope I have explained, it is not easy when the country of origin sees the individuals as people who attack them and the country that they are in sees them as people who attack them. In that sense, we are protecting the humanitarian support for these individuals where they are and trying to ensure that they are humanely treated and not transported to other countries. But we have a very limited locus in this matter.

House of Lords, London

November 25, 2009 0 comment

MKO members to be relocated from Iraq

Rajavi lobby silenced in UK Parliament yet again

David Drew (Stroud, Labour) Rajavi lobby silenced in UK Parliament yet again
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on the detention of 36 Camp Ashraf residents without charge or trial by Iraqi forces; and if he will make a statement.

Ivan Lewis (Minister of State (Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs), Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Bury South, Labour)
The Iraqi Government have given assurances that no Camp Ashraf residents would be forcibly transferred to a country where they have reason to fear persecution, or where substantial grounds exist to believe they would be tortured.

All 36 arrested on 28 July 2009 were released on 7 October 2009 and have returned to Camp Ashraf. The Iraqi authorities have said they intend to resettle all 36 to other countries once suitable arrangements are in place. They had been detained under a combination of charges related to the violence at the camp on 28 July 2009 and immigration violations.

Our ambassador in Baghdad met the Iraqi Human Rights Minister on 6 October 2009 to discuss the detention of the 36. He was briefed on the efforts underway to make arrangements for their release.

During their detention our embassy in Baghdad was in regular contact with the Iraqi authorities, the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The UN confirmed that they have been held in acceptable local conditions. Food and water was available throughout, but the 36 men chose to follow a hunger strike in protest at their detention. Medical care was provided during their detention. The 36 had regular access to the ICRC.
House of Parliament, London, October 13, 2009

October 15, 2009 0 comment

Camp Ashraf – Mojahedin Khalq – UK says Geneva Convention does not apply

Iraq: Human Rights

Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Camp Ashraf - Mojahedin Khalq - UK says Geneva Convention does not apply representations he has made to the Iraqi Government on the deaths and injuries to protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention following the recent attack on Camp Ashraf by Iraqi forces; and if he will make a statement. [290777]

Chris Bryant: Our ambassador in Iraq has written to the Iraqi authorities to ask for a review into the recent events at the camp. Officials from our embassy in Baghdad are continuing to follow developments, and will shortly undertake a further visit to the camp.

Our view remains that the residents of Camp Ashraf are not entitled to ‘protected persons’ status as the Fourth Geneva Convention ceased to apply in Iraq after 28 June 2004, following the end of active hostilities and occupation.

Chris Bryant, House of Parliament,

September 21, 2009 0 comment

A debate over Camp Ashraf

Iraq: Camp Ashraf

Question

Asked By Lord Eden of Winton

British Parliament, House of Lords – July 01, 2009

Lord Eden of Winton (Conservative)
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have recently made representations to the governments of the United States and Iraq concerning the current threats to the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf in Northern Iraq.

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, the UK ambassador to Baghdad called on the Iraqi Human Rights Minister, Widjan Salim, on 13 April this year to raise the issue of Camp Ashraf, and to remind her of the early assurances made by the Iraqi Government about the humane treatment of its residents. Officials at the British embassy in Baghdad continue to discuss Camp Ashraf with staff at the US embassy; the most recent discussion took place on 10 June 2009.

Lord Eden of Winton (Conservative)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. I recognise that the Government have no wish to intervene in matters that are the concern of other countries, but given that the Government apparently now subscribe to the culture of "responsibility to protect", should we not be doing all that we can to avert a potential humanitarian catastrophe? What precisely were the assurances given by the Iraqi Government? Will it be made clear to Mr Maliki that international opinion will hold him accountable for the safety of the citizens of Ashraf?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, the UK Government remain concerned that the fundamental human rights of all the residents of Camp Ashraf are fully observed. We particularly sought assurances from the Iraqi Government, who have given them—I now give the assurance that the noble Lord seeks—that no Ashraf residents will be forcibly transferred to a country where they have reason to fear persecution or where substantial grounds exist to believe that they would be tortured. We continue, as the noble Lord rightly says, to have no direct interest or control in this camp, but we continue to liaise with our colleagues in the United States, who are monitoring events with the Iraqi Government.

Lord Archer of Sandwell (Labour)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the citizens of Ashraf have been accorded protected person status under the fourth Geneva Convention, that the initial protecting power was the United States and that it cannot divest itself of its obligations simply by announcing that it has transferred them to the Iraqi Government? Given that the United Kingdom participated in the original invasion, have we expressed some of these concerns to our American allies?

Lord Dholakia (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, would the noble Lord accept the recent statement made by Mrs Rajavi in Paris calling for free and fair elections supervised by the United Nations? More importantly, is he aware of the intimidation of the inhabitants of Ashraf City? Would it not be right at this time to ensure that the European Union, Britain and America warn Iran that any harm, intimidation or persecution of those inhabitants will result in a reference to the International Criminal Court?

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, I have no knowledge of intimidation in the manner that the noble Lord suggests. If he has such evidence, I would be pleased to receive it and pass it to authorities which can take the matter further. It is a clear indication of the Government of Iraq’s position that they have given assurances that no Ashraf residents will be forcibly transferred. That suggests that they are honouring their obligations. Our consular staff in Baghdad have talked to people in the camp and assure us that food and medicines are getting through, so there does not seem to be any lack of supply. However, I will happily take on board any evidence that the noble Lord has.

Lord Waddington (Conservative)
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree at least that Britain, being a party to the decision to hand over responsibility for Ashraf City to Iraq, now has some responsibility for recent developments and for the residents’ safety? How on earth can it be right for the Iraqi authorities to blockade Ashraf City, refusing people the right to take in food, and demanding police access to the city while asserting that those living there have no rights whatever as citizens? Surely it is time that the British Government talked again to the Iraqi Government and reminded them of their responsibilities under international law.

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, I can but repeat the invitation I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. If the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has evidence of that nature to put forward, I will happily take it on board and ensure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can inquire into it.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Crossbench)
My Lords, I am surprised that the Minister is unaware of the fact that Camp Ashraf is in essence being besieged by the Iraq authorities. As someone who had grave reservations about the sacrifice that our soldiers made to achieve democracy in Iraq, I ask how we can allow those in Camp Ashraf, who have the same objective for Iran, to be harassed in the way they are. The Minister asks for evidence; he is in a better position to know the evidence of which the rest of us speak.

Lord Brett (Government Whip (technically a Lord in Waiting, HM Household); Labour)
My Lords, the answer is already in the noble Lord’s question. Iraq is a democratic and independent sovereign state. The United Kingdom, and even the United States, which handed over control of the camp from 1 January, have to recognise that fact. However, that does not prevent us making representations, hence my invitation for any evidence.

British Parliament, House of Lords

July 4, 2009 0 comment

No evidence of ill-treatment against MKO returnees

UK Parliament: No evidence of ill-treatment against MKO returnees

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the government of Iraq to remove all restrictions on supporters of the UK Parliament: No evidence of ill-treatment against MKO returnees People’s Mujahedin of Iran based in Ashraf City following the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice. [257284]

Bill Rammell: On 26 January 2009, taking into account the judgment by the Court of First Instance on 4 December 2008, the General Affairs and External Relations Council adopted a list which did not include the People’s Mujahedin Organisation of Iran (MEK/PMOI). Mindful of this 4 December judgement annulling the July 2008 listing of the MEK/PMOI, the UK believes that EU member states must observe and respect the court’s judgment in the current review of the EU list of terrorist organisations.

Residents of the camp are free to leave at any time if they demonstrate they have the appropriate travel documentation and finance to leave the camp and take up residence either in Iran or in a third country. Voluntary repatriations to Iran have previously taken place and, we understand, without the returnees concerned being ill treated. Such reparations will continue for those who wish to do this. There is no evidence to suggest forced relocation of the residents in Iraq or elsewhere will take place.

The US received assurances from the Iraqi authorities which make clear their commitment to the humane treatment and continued wellbeing of the camp residents. We understand that in addition to this the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights have also visited the camp and delivered these assurances to a representative body of the residents. We are naturally concerned that the rights of all those involved are observed and that camp residents continue to be treated humanely and their fundamental human rights be maintained.

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to put in place mechanisms to protect supporters of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran based in Ashraf City. [257285]

Bill Rammell: I should clarify that it was the US, not the UK, who had responsibility for the security and administration of the camp. The US informed us of its plans to hand responsibility for the camp to the Iraqi authorities from 1 January 2009 and this has now taken place. Both the Iraqi authorities and the US had been involved in discussions with the UN High Commissioner

27 Feb 2009 : Column 1203W

for Refugees and the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq on modalities. The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights also played a key role in overseeing the transition. In addition we understand that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) discusses, on a confidential basis, all of the issues surrounding the camp with the People’s Mujahedin Organisation of Iran (MEK/PMOI) and the Iraqi and US authorities. The ICRC follows developments at the camp closely and visits regularly.

The US received assurances from the Iraqi authorities before the handover took place making clear their commitment to the humane treatment and continued wellbeing of the camp residents. We understand that in addition to this the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights have also visited the camp and delivered these assurances to a representative body of the residents.

We are naturally concerned that the rights of all those residents involved are observed and that they continue to be treated humanely and their fundamental human rights be maintained. In this regard, we understand that as a result of their extensive contacts the US are satisfied that the Iraqi authorities are fully aware of their responsibilities with regard to Camp Ashraf and its residents.

On 26 January 2009, bearing in mind the judgment by the Court of First Instance on 4 December 2008, the General Affairs and External Relations Council adopted a list which did not include the MEK/PMOI organisation. The 4 December judgment annulled the July 2008 listing of the MEK/PMOI, the UK therefore believe that EU member states must observe and respect the court’s judgment in the current review of the EU list of terrorist organisations.

House of Commons

May 2, 2009 0 comment

MEK Camp Ashraf

Camp Ashraf and the Geneva Conventions

Dowlnoad The PDF File

Library of the House of Commons

In brief: Camp Ashraf and the Geneva Conventions

Standard note: SN/IA/05022

Last updated: 20 March 2009

Author: Arabella Thorp

Section: International Affairs and Defence Section

What is Camp Ashraf ?

Ashraf is a settlement in Iraq’s Diyala province, near the border with Iran, which houses the headquarters of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI), also known as Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) or Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organisation (MKO). The PMOI is the main body in the coalition of Iranian opposition groups known as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), and is regarded as a terrorist organisation by a number of states but has now been removed from the UK and EU lists of terrorist organisations. It sided with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, but following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 the PMOI surrendered to US forces and 3,800 PMOI members were disarmed and cantoned in Camp Ashraf. Some 370 have since been voluntarily repatriated to Iran , and in 2004 restrictions and controls were removed. The Iraqi government has stated its intention to close the camp and expel all PMOI personnel from Iraqi territory.

Who is responsible for the inhabitants of Ashraf?

The main responsibility to protect civilians lies with the states that have effective control over them. From 2003 until 31 December 2008 US forces protected Camp Ashraf. Then on 1 January 2009, control passed to the Iraqi Government, under the new US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. Both the US and Iraqi governments have given assurances that, within the framework of Iraqi national legislation, Ashraf residents will be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law and with the principle of non-refoulement in particular. The UK considers the issue primarily a US rather than a UK responsibility.

What are the main concerns?

Lliving conditions at Ashraf are not generally a cause for concern, although an explosion damaged Ashraf’s water-supply station in February 2008. The main concern is that its inhabitants would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights violations if they were to be returned involuntarily to Iran. Iraq has reportedly given Ashraf’s inhabitants two options: return to Iran or find a third country for exile. Iraqi officials have however stated that PMOI members would not be forcibly repatriated to Iran and have called upon the international community to offer asylum to Ashraf’s occupants.

People who have left Camp Ashraf voluntarily have reported ‘brain-washing’, forced indoctrination and rough treatment by the PMOI of those who wanted to leave the camp.

This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.

Do the Geneva Conventions apply?

In July 2004, the PMOI forces in Ashraf were declared by the US to be ‘protected persons’ under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, because they had not been belligerents during the Iraq War. The Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians who, as the result of an international armed conflict or of occupation, find themselves in the hands of a country of which they are not nationals. It states that in no circumstances shall a protected person be transferred to a country where he or she may have reason to fear persecution for his or her political opinions or religious beliefs.

In the case of occupied territory, the Convention continues to apply for a year after the general close of military operations, and partially thereafter if the occupying power continues to exercise the functions of government. The occupation of Iraq formally ended on 30 June 2004.

What other international law is relevant?

Under the international law principle of non-refoulement, no-one should be deported, expelled or repatriated if there is a real risk that they may be subjected to any kind of ill-treatment, or that they may face persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The US has ratified international conventions embodying this principle (the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture), but Iraq has not. However, non-refoulement is widely recognised as a principle of customary international law that binds all states.