The UK has faced tough questions this week from a UN panel closely scrutinising the UK's human rights record, following a series of disclosures about involvement in so-called extraordinary rendition and torture in the years following the 9/11 attacks.

Over two days in Geneva, the UK delegation went before the UN committee which monitors the implementation of the international convention against torture to face hundreds of questions covering a range of issues including: complicity in abusive interrogation; renditions to Libya; the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq; and the stalled official British inquiry into the treatment of terrorism suspects.

Almost every state faces regular examination by the UN's Committee against Torture, although the UK's appearance has been delayed for a number of years following its late submission of documentary evidence. Once the evidence sessions finally got underway, some of the committee's members displayed increasing exasperation as they accused the UK delegation of carefully evading some significant questions.

After posing a series of questions about the killing of Baha Mousa and the mistreatment of individuals detained by the British army in Iraq, Xuexian Wang, a Chinese diplomat, complained loudly that while the UK delegation's responses were being "given in beautiful English", they seemed "almost to be non-answers".

Alessio Bruni, an Italian committee member, became angry as he accused the British government of watering down the UN convention against torture when issuing guidance to intelligence officers dealing with overseas agencies known to employ torture.

Bruni also accused UK governments of embedding what he described as "escape clauses" into both the intelligence agencies' guidance and the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, the legislation which incorporated the UN convention into domestic law. "There is always in your rules a sort of escape clause. And a clever torturer can always hide under those escape clauses," he told the British delegates.

Asked about a clause in the 1988 Act which offers British officials a defence against prosecution for torture – as long as they can show that they have "lawful authority, justification or excuse" – Mark Sweeney, the Ministry of Justice official who headed the UK delegation, said nobody had ever relied upon that defence.

But the committee's members made clear that they fear another British law, the 1994 Intelligence Services Act, may explain why no British official has ever needed to rely upon the defence, as it ensures they cannot be prosecuted within the UK once such "lawful authority" has been issued by a government minister.

Escape clauses



That act was also denounced as offering "escape clauses" which allow the UK to evade its legal responsibilities under the UN convention against torture.

The committee is due to publish its conclusions later this month. The last time it voiced serious criticism of the UK's human rights record was more than 20 years ago when it highlighted concerns about the treatment of suspects detained by police in Northern Ireland.

The current examination comes as the UK bids for election to the UN Human Rights Council, one of the organisation's key bodies.

While most of the specific allegations of British involvement in rendition and torture predate the 2010 general election, and while some ministers of the current government are known to be deeply concerned about the UK's human rights record in the years following the 9/11 attacks, many NGOs say that the coalition's failure to account for alleged violations by UK intelligence agencies and armed forces during that period continues to tarnish the country's international standing.

In Geneva, the UK delegates defended the government's controversial position that while it accepts that it is subject to the UN convention against torture within its own territory, its forces and agencies operating overseas may not be. Specifically, Sweeney said, the UK government did not accept that its legal obligations under the convention extended to UK forces in Afghanistan, although other legal restraints did apply.

The delegation also maintained that it would "not be appropriate" to comment on Scotland Yard's investigations into the UK-Libyan operations that led to two Libyan dissidents and their families, including young children, being "rendered" to Muammar Gaddafi's prisons in 2004.

Asylum seekers



There were questions, too, about the enforced removal of Sri Lankan asylum seekers who were allegedly subsequently tortured ; the interim report of the stalled inquiry into the UK's treatment of terrorism suspects since 9/11, which the government has promised to publish but which it has sat upon for almost a year; and the secret courts that are being established by the Justice and Security Act.

The delegation also faced questions about the standards of impartiality and independence of a Ministry of Defence inquiry into the abuse of prisoners during the British occupation of south-east Iraq. Questioned about the training of army interrogators, Sweeney said the British government would not disclose the methods used, as to do so would "aid enemy combatants in designing counter-measures".

There was some comfort for the British government from Juan Méndez, the UN special rapporteur on torture, who told the Guardian that he believed one reason the UK is facing so many questions over its human rights record was because "the UK has a very vibrant civil society that keeps government on its toes".

There was also a second reason, however. "There are allegations about participation in extraordinary rendition, and deportation and extradition to places where people might be at risk of torture. All of these things – and the two wars – raise a number of concerns."

Méndez said that while his office was currently "getting so much business from the United Kingdom", the manner in which the country's government responds to complaints about human rights violations had what he described as a "precedent-setting potential" for other states.

"The UK wants to be, and is, an important international actor, and the government takes its responsibilities, as far as my mandate is concerned, seriously. They always respond. They don't necessarily agree with me, but they respect the mandate."

But Méndez said that the British government was setting a dangerous precedent by insisting the UN convention against torture did not extend to British agencies and forces serving outside the UK. "It is contrary to both the spirit and letter of human rights law."

He also said he believed the British government's attempts to have legal claims by veterans of Kenya's 1950s Mau Mau insurgency struck out on time-limitation grounds to be contrary to international law.