130 Europe and Central Asia Summary of Amnesty International’s Concerns in the Region, January – June 2007 State authorities were more preoccupied with proving the lack of involvement of high-level State officials in the case than discovering the truth about the circumstances of the disappearance and death of the applicant’s husband.” UNITED KINGDOM Terrorism measures (update to AI Index: EUR 01/001/2007) Offence of “encouragement of terrorism” In January, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) published its report on the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (Convention), which the UK had signed but not, by the end of the reporting period, ratified. In considering whether the offence of “encouragement of terrorism” created by the Terrorism Act 2006 was compatible with the Convention, the JCHR noted that the UK government had claimed that this offence had been introduced to implement Article 5 of the Convention. The JCHR highlighted differences “between the encouragement of terrorism offence in s. 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 and the offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence in Article 5 of the Convention, each of which makes the scope of the UK offence broader than the offence required to be created by the Convention”. In light of this, the JCHR considered that there was “considerable risk of incompatibility with the right to freedom of expression”. AI had expressed a similar concern that the scope of the offence significantly exceeded what was required by the Convention (see AI Index: POL 10/001/2007 – UK). The JCHR also expressed concern that the offence of “encouragement of terrorism” lacked any requirement to prove the danger of a terrorist offence being in fact committed, thereby omitting “an important safeguard”. The JCHR also noted that the concept of “glorification” included within the definition of the domestic offence was “too Amnesty International vague”. In light of its concerns, the JCHR concluded that “the Government cannot and should not ratify the Convention because the UK’s domestic law is not compatible with it”. Home Secretary terrorism Bill announces new In June, the then Home Secretary announced that a new Bill with the stated aim of countering terrorism would be brought forward later in the year. Of particular concern to AI was the government’s stated belief that the maximum period for which people could be detained by the police without charge under terrorism laws should be extended beyond the existing 28-day limit. AI had opposed the previous extension from 14 to 28 days of the maximum length of pre-charge detention (see AI Index: EUR 01/001/2007). Lotfi Raissi (update to AI Index: EUR 45/004/2006) On 21 September 2001 Lotfi Raissi, a 32year-old Algerian pilot, was arrested for his alleged participation in the attacks on 11 September 2001. He was subsequently detained in a cell at Belmarsh high security prison for 23 hours a day for almost five months, on the basis of an extradition request by the US authorities. In April 2002 a judge dismissed the case, saying that there had been “no evidence” whatsoever to support the allegation that he was involved in terrorism. In June 2004, Lotfi Raissi asked to be compensated under the Home Secretary’s “Ex Gratia Scheme”, which exists to compensate victims of miscarriages of justice. The then Home Secretary, however, stated that the scheme was not designed for extradition proceedings and rejected Lotfi Raissi’s claim. In February, the High Court of England and Wales (High Court) endorsed the Home Secretary’s position and rejected Lotfi Raissi’s claim that the Home Secretary was AI Index: EUR 01/010/2007