Five methods

The first use of this system for obtaining intelligence was recorded in the period 1953-54 during the Mau Mau uprising and in the last years of the colonial war in Malaya ^[8] . Then it was used in Swaziland (1963), in Aden (see the crisis in Aden in 1963 ) and on a particularly large scale - in Brunei in 1963, where the number of people subjected to interrogation procedures reached 2,000 prisoners. It is assumed that it was in Brunei that all five basic methods were purposefully used together ^[8] . Then, in August 1971, during riots in Northern Ireland, at least 12 members of the Irish Republican Army were subjected to five methods of torture in a system of five methods ; in October of the same year, two more were added to them ^[9] . It is believed that, in general, this operation to extract information has led to some success, but the assessment of the overall quality of intelligence received from these people continues to be “disappointingly incomplete” ^[10] . It is also noted there that it is rather difficult to compare intelligence obtained using the direct use of five methods and data obtained using other interrogation technologies or knocked out of poor conditions under interrogation ^[10] . Despite the fact that this set of measures was not enshrined in any of the official documents, there is evidence that the methodology for its use was taught to the officers of the Royal Ulster Police during seminars in April 1971 ^[11] .

In 1971, the use of harsh interrogation techniques in Northern Ireland led to a parliamentary hearing chaired by Lord Parker The result of which was a detailed report published on March 2, 1972 ^[12] and qualifying these methods of inquiry as a violation of the law ^[13] . According to the study, British Prime Minister Edward Heath said that the set of “five methods” will no longer be used, although inquiries will continue ^[14] . In addition, continued use of the “five methods” during training ^[13] .

In 1976, the case came to the European Court of Human Rights , which in 1978 qualified the use by the British of the “five methods” as a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the form of “humiliating and inhuman treatment”, but did not see it they are tortured ^[13] .

During the Iraq war , the circumstances of the death of a 26-year-old Iraqi named Bach Musa after his two-day imprisonment at one of the British military bases in September 2003 received scandalous publicity ^[15] . The investigation noted on the body of the deceased a huge number of physical injuries (total number not less than 93), among which were fragmented ribs , a broken nose , etc. ^[16] , but death occurred precisely after the use of torture in the “five methods” system ^[17] .

In 2008, a joint report of the upper and lower chambers of the British Parliament was published on the use by coalition forces of prohibited methods of inquiry during military operations in Iraq. According to witnesses, such elements of the “five methods” system as torture with an uncomfortable position , sensory deprivation , etc. routinely applied to captured Iraqis ^[18] . A report by the independent company Public Interest Lawyers indicated that the “five methods” system , which was banned in 1972, became the de facto standard operating procedure for conducting inquiries in the early years of the presence of British forces in Iraq ^[19] .

In 2014, the results of the analysis of the CIA program documents on the detention and interrogation of prisoners ^[20] caused widespread resonance in the US Senate , and experts at Amnesty International drew attention to the striking similarities between the American inquiry system and the British complex of five methods ^[21] .

1. Samantha Newbery. Intelligence and Controversial British Interrogation Techniques: the Northern Ireland Case, 1971–2 // Irish Studies in International Affairs: Journal. - 2009 .-- T. 20 . - S. 103-119 . - DOI : 10.3318 / ISIA.2009.20.103 .
2. E. Lauterpacht, CJ Greenwood. International Law Reports . - Cambridge University Press, 1980 .-- 756 p. - ISBN 9780521464031 .
3. The Baha Mousa Public Inquiry Report, Volume 1 / William Gage. - The Stationery Office ,, 2011. - 1368 p. - ISBN 9780102974928 .
4. Francisco Forrest Martin, Stephen J. Schnably, Richard Wilson, Jonathan Simon, Mark Tushnet. International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Treaties, Cases, and Analysis. - London: Cambridge University Press, 2006 .-- ISBN 9781139448932 .
5. UN Convention Against Torture: Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee about the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq / Great Britain. Parliament. Joint Committee on Human Rights. - The Stationery Office, 2008 .-- ISBN 9780104013410 .
6. British Forces in Iraq. The Emerging Picture of Human Rights Violations and the Role of Judicial Review / Public Interest Lawyers. - 2009.

1. John McGuffin. Guineapigs . - London: Penguin Books, 1974. - 192 p.
2. Samantha Newbery. Interrogation, intelligence and security: Controversial British Techniques. - London: Manchester University Press, 2015 .-- 238 p. - ISBN 9780719098345 .

• Advanced Interrogation Techniques
• Torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison
• CIA Interrogation Manual

• Fiona de londras. Revisiting the Five Techniques in the European Court of Human Rights . Blog of the European Journal of International Law (12 December 2014). Date of treatment May 6, 2016.
• Report of the commission of inquiry in the case of Ireland v. The United Kingdom (English) (January 25, 1976). Date of treatment June 3, 2016.