Thursday, 15 October 2009

Could this Be Reprieve's Rationale?

After having found the undisclosed London office of Reprieve, I paid them a visit. The 'death penalty team', and Clare Algar were already in a meeting, and so were unable to meet with me. As a result, I met with Cortney Busch, the caseworker, operational officer and P.A. to Clare Algar at Reprieve. I expressed my desire to meet with Ms Algar so that I could discuss Reprieve's recent silence on Iran. I further argued that perhaps Reprieve's shortcomings concerning Iran were not deliberate, that perhaps it was a result of their lack of resources with regards to sufficient information on Iran. Cortney welcomed me to arrange, via e-mail, a meeting with Clare Algar; in addition she offered the following as a rationale to the lack of coverage on Iran.

Where the detention of persons is concerned, Reprieve is only funded to account on Guantanamo Bay and such secret detention facilities. If there were more cases to arise, it would be a matter of whether they are funded to cover those new cases. Where persons on death row are concerned, Reprieve is funded to focus on British nationals who have been sentenced to death.

From this, one can infer that Reprieve is not concerned with the secret and arbitrary detention of Iranian protestors in Iran; nor are they concerned with such protestors sentenced to death, for this is not within their remit because they are not funded to do so. Of course, this was what was disclosed by Cortney Busch, and not the official explanation by Executive Director Clare Algar.

Is this an acceptable rationale, or is it a 'cop-out'? If this is true, why couldn't Ms Algar have explained that in her e-mail to the many that complained about her silence? Why did she choose to no longer respond? In any event, funding or not, if she could attend a Press TV debate funded by the IRI - who notoriously violate every human rights law - she could have merely mentioned Iran when discussing the abuse of anti-torture law; there is no need for funding to say that.


  1. Good job. Do we know who funds them? Also if you look at their Death rows tab, it mentions Chan King Yu, from Malaysia, Eric Kong from Thailand, Philipinnes etc. In the ABout Us tab it says 'We promote the rule of law around the world' So how does all this fit with what you have been told

  2. Precisely, hence the links I put in the post; I wanted the reader to see the facts for themselves and realise what is happening, rather than for me to force it down their throats.

  3. Although, the concerned detainees are listed as 'British'; this is conveyed when one read the individual profiles on Reprieve's site.