ICRC and confidentiality

Abstract

The criticisms levelled against the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) by Geoffrey Robertson (Aug 4, p 368)1Robertson G Health and human rights series.Lancet. 2007; 370: 368-369Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar do not take into account some fundamental facts about the organisation. First, far from seeing confidentiality as some kind of “fetish” as suggested by Robertson, the ICRC remains convinced that this is a key factor in obtaining the best possible access to the victims of armed conflicts and other situations of violence. Years of experience have shown that confidentiality enables frank, often blunt, talks with the responsible parties, geared to finding solutions and avoiding the risk of politicisation associated with public debate. Prevention of abuse, including torture, is notoriously difficult if not impossible to measure. In 2006, the ICRC visited 478 000 detainees in 71 countries. Access to many of these detainees would have been impossible without confidentiality. The real value of this approach might therefore lie less in the good it achieves than in the yet greater evil it helps to prevent. Second, Robertson refers to certain witnesses who could enjoy exemption from compelled testimony in front of the new international criminal courts—including war correspondents and human rights monitors. However, he does not mention that the only organisation specifically exempted by the International Criminal Court from testifying in proceedings and from publicly disclosing documents is the ICRC. The rules of procedure and evidence of the Court, which have been negotiated and adopted by States, clearly recognise the underlying rationale and added value of the ICRC's approach based on confidential contacts with parties to a conflict. Third, as Robertson rightly points out in the case of the doctor–patient relationship, the acknowledged value of confidentiality might in some circumstances have to be over-ridden in the interests of bringing home responsibility for a war crime. Rather than insisting on “absolute privilege” as suggested by Robertson, the ICRC does in fact have a similar approach. Its confidentiality is not unconditional but based on a commitment by the parties it deals with to take seriously the ICRC's recommendations aimed at putting an end to or preventing any recurrence of the violations it notes. Whether or not confidentiality is maintained depends on the quality of the ICRC's dialogue with the concerned parties and ultimately the humanitarian effect of this dialogue. Where the desired effect is not achieved, and every other reasonable means has been exhausted, the ICRC reserves the right to resort to other measures, including public condemnation, as was the case recently in Myanmar (Burma). The ICRC has had one central aim since its establishment almost 150 years ago: to prevent and alleviate human suffering, without discrimination, and to protect human dignity. As a resolutely neutral, independent, and impartial organisation, the ICRC remains convinced that its unique approach is a necessary means to achieving that end—although by no means the only one. I declare that I have no conflict of interest.