CHERIE BOOTH, QC, raised the profile of the debate on torture last week when she condemned its use in the War on Terror. The prohibition on torture was absolute, she said, and there were no exceptions. The Prime Minister’s wife backed a House of Lords’ ruling last December that evidence obtained by torture could not be used in the courts to prove a person’s guilt; although she did agree with the law lords that intelligence from abroad, possibly obtained by torture, could be acted upon.

Her carefully worded speech, to launch the Human Rights Watch book Torture, nonetheless disclosed a gap between her view and that of her husband’s government: ministers had argued in the courts for the use of torture evidence in trials.

Tony Blair’s view is best revealed in his response to the video of UK soldiers abusing Iraqi youths. First, he emphasises the “few rotten apples” thesis; secondly, he promises that “allegations of mistreatment . . . will be investigated very fully indeed”. At the same time, the case of al-Skeini, in which the Government persists in denying that the acts of UK soldiers in South East Iraq are subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), proceeds to the House of Lords.

Al-Skeini relates to six test cases and a further 32 stayed cases of alleged killings, torture and abuse that took place in Iraq between 2003 and 2004. One of these, Baha Mousa, 26, was a hotel receptionist who was arrested by British troops along with eight others and beaten to death in custody.

Does the Prime Minister’s approach square with the Government’s legal arguments in this case — or with the reality of what took place in occupied Iraq? Abuse and humiliation of Iraqis was commonplace. There appears to be clear evidence of widespread and systematic abuse that contravenes Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the prohibition on torture). Nine men were apparently tortured in the Baha Mousa incident by men taking it in turns to beat them, one to death, another to the brink of death, and the other seven badly. Another nine men were abused in Camp Breadbasket. At least two other men have been killed in detention. There are the Osnabrück photographs and now the video. The evidence in the Court of Appeal revealed the practice of hooding and stressing all detainees.

None of this is surprising. The Government’s position in alSkeini is that the HRA, the Torture Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights do not apply. When soldiers were sent into Iraq and when the incidents in the video took place in 2004, that was its view. Presumably soldiers were not trained to comply with their human rights obligations because it was being denied that there were any.

Tony Blair has promised an investigation — but can the military ever properly investigate itself? The Attorney-General’s correspondence with the Ministry of Defence disclosed to the Court of Appeal in al-Skeini indicates not. The Divisional Court in al-Skeini was critical of the system and the Court of Appeal lambasted it; but the Government did not act upon those criticisms and maintains that the military system complies with the procedural obligation to hold an independent and effective inquiry into breaches of Article 2 (the right to life) or Article 3.

The video evidence provides further clues as to what has gone wrong. First, soldiers walked past the abuse without apparent concern. Secondly, commanding officers failed to intervene even though the scene was in daylight and inside barracks. Military chiefs cannot mask endemic deficiencies in command responsibility by insisting that the military system is effective and that any problems are caused by “ambulance-chasing” lawyers. Thirdly, the video was made public only after a lengthy delay even though it seems to have been circulated in the Army.

Preparatory steps to ensure respect for human rights in Iraq were not taken. First, soldiers should have been trained to know and apply those standards and expect disciplinary action if certain boundaries (such as the absolute prohibition on torture) were crossed. Secondly, the chain of command, including government, should have demanded adherence to those standards. Thirdly, and most important, those in leadership roles should have learnt lessons from Northern Ireland and Deepcut and rooted out unlawful interrogation techniques and any bullying culture.

What is at stake in al-Skeini is of critical importance. First, these issues go way beyond Iraq. If the HRA applies only within UK territory, violations by state agents around the world can be dealt with only in Strasbourg. Secondly, it is through human rights law that international humanitarian law is enforced and its violators brought to account. Thirdly, a notable casualty in the war on terror has been respect for human rights law. The redefinition of torture by the US and its behaviour at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq is of a piece with Belmarsh, the UK preventive detention system in Basra and our role in extraordinary renditions.

Now is the time, as Cherie Booth said, for human rights principles to prevail. The Government accuses lawyers of trying to tie the hands of soldiers fighting wars. Not so: these incidents took place during the occupation. In any case, human rights principles go hand in hand with strong and internationally respected armed forces. In 1993 the Canadian public were shocked by the torture to death of a teenager by Canadian forces acting as peacekeepers in Somalia. The Canadian State’s reaction was swift and principled: it set up a full-scale public inquiry and a special advisory group on military justice and investigation services.

More importantly, an independent military police complaints commission was set up to make military investigations accountable to civilians, the public and Parliament. In doing so, it made Canadian forces accountable for violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms wherever they serve — a response in marked contrast to our Government’s grudging response to the Mousa and other incidents.

Apparently this country went to war in Iraq to introduce human rights there. It is time that our Government accepted that human rights standards apply to our soldiers there.

The author is a solicitor with Public Interest Lawyers

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure