Business may risk being accused of tacit complicity if they remain silent or inactive in the face of torture. There are cases where there are implications of direct business involvement in torture, for example, businesses that run or partially staff detention facilities where torture or ill-treatment is known to have taken place. Companies may also face allegations of complicity in violating the right to freedom from torture by providing equipment to security forces that they knew or should have known would be used to torture. Companies need to take proactive steps to understand how existing and proposed activities may affect human rights, and refine their plans to address and avoid potential negative human rights impacts on an ongoing basis.

The following examples were identified through background research:

• In an April 2008 briefing to the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International (AI) highlighted particular concern over the ‘persistent pattern’ of secret detention and torture committed by the Algerian government against individuals suspected of having knowledge about terrorism. AI notes that torture is also used against political activists arrested following demonstrations, as well as against detainees.
• In April 2008, in a joint statement with Kenyan human rights organisations Mwatikho and Western Kenya-Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch claimed that the rebel group Sabaot Land Defence Force and the Kenyan military were responsible for ‘horrific’ human rights violations, including killings, torture and rape of civilians, in an armed conflict in the Mt. Elgon area of western Kenya.
• In June 2008, Amnesty International (AI) voiced ‘concern’ about the persistent use of torture in Mauritania to extract confessions – especially from those accused of links with Islamic groups. AI claims that torture regularly occurs under the provisions of an anti-terrorist law which allows for a detention period without charge or trial of 15 days.

How does a company ensure it is not complicit in torture and other human rights violations when supplying equipment or security services that may be used to torture to a government that has a history of engaging in torture?

The following have been identified as possible components of this dilemma:

• Alleged complicity in violations by private or public security forces
• Employee safety
• Investment in countries with extensive state involvement
• Operational involvement in detention facilities
• Product misuse