I suppose a relevant aspect is that both the coordinator, Amaral, and the chief-inspector, Tavares de Almeida, were at various stages in the judicial process concerning two alleged cases of torture.
- It does rather lend a different slant as to why FOI requests concerning correspondence between the FCO in Portugal and the Home Office may have been withheld from public disclosure. There is another FOI reply to another - broader but similar - request that is more complete, but I can't find the link at the moment:
By virtue of section 27(4)(a) of the Act, the duty to
confirm or deny does not arise if compliance with section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 would, or would be likely to, prejudice the interests of the United Kingdom abroad
(under section 27 (1) (c) of the FOIA) or the protection by the United Kingdom of its interest
abroad (under section 27 (1) (d) of the FOIA).
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3383/response/7834/attach/html/3/UBS%20Letter%20to%20Mr%20Dillon.pdf.html
- It also may help to explain why the McCanns were apparently accompanied by consular staff for meetings with the PJ.
- Why pro-Amaral spin was that the McCanns were afforded 'high-level protection' due to Gerry's non-existent VIP status: cue rumours about COMARE (nuclear industry), Freeport (high-level corruption), political family history and ambitions (wrong family).
IMO, the more likely explanation may be that the FCO had improved - and were keen to demonstrate - their service to UK citizens abroad in recent times (including support to help other countries swamped by the burden of media interest) and that they were fully aware of various slippery stairs.
Exactly as you say Carana, the British authorities were very well aware of what the Drs McCann were up against when Madeleine disappeared in Portugal.
There is no mystery about their concern ... the only mystery is why the word of a person with a criminal conviction for perjury that they had "preferential" treatment prevails in some circles.
Follow the link to read the full account of the treatment received by another British citizen whose case was raised in the House of Commons by his MP; Michael Cook did not have the "protection" afforded to the McCanns.
**Snip
There can be no greater evil than such a crime. I would not defend in any way a child murderer, but I will defend my constituent's right to a fair trial. My responsibility and my job tonight is to highlight the possibility that my constituent may be the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. Some say that Cook is innocent ; some say that the police investigation was inadequate. Some say that the trial verdict was so lacking supporting evidence as to be incredible. Some say that Cook has been tortured and mistreated. Those are not questions which the House can or should decide. In truth, I do not know whether Cook is innocent or guilty.
What I do know is that many questions are raised by the case which have the most serious implications, not only for Michael Cook, but for all British subjects travelling abroad.[/size]
Let us review some of the evidence. There was, understandably, immense local pressure to clear up this horrible crime. An unsolved child murder would frighten away tourists. An elderly Portuguese gardener said that he saw the murderer and the murder car. He said that the car was red with foreign plates. Cook had such a car. It was alleged that Cook's car tyre marks were found where the body was discovered, and on that prime tyre mark evidence Cook was arrested. It was claimed by the police that Cook had a child-molesting record and that he had confessed to the crime : they had their man. The public furore and the subsequent relief at Cook's arrest were surpassed only by the total outrage against him.
Let us examine the initial key facts. After nine months in gaol, Cook got two good lawyers and it was quickly discovered that the prime--indeed the only--hard evidence linking Cook to the murder was bogus. The tyre marks were of an entirely different type from those of Cook's car. It is also claimed that Cook's car does not have the ground clearance needed for the area where Rachel was found. Similarly, no confession was ever presented at the trial. It had been claimed by police that two officers heard the confession. One remembered it clearly ; the second denied all recollection of it. One would not expect to forget such a thing easily.
Cook appeared in court, with black eyes and a missing tooth, and he was deeply bruised. It is claimed that Cook was hung from an upstairs window by his feet, that his feet were beaten until he could not stand, that he was tied to a chair and beaten, that he was deprived of sleep, and that a revolver was forced into his mouth and the trigger pulled in a mock execution. Cook's lawyers were said to be pushing for the release of a television video report which
Column 283
allegedly showed police beating Cook. Those lawyers were involved in a tragic accident involving a front tyre blow-out which, incidentally, it is claimed has never been properly investigated by the police. In that untimely accident, Dr. da Silva was killed and Dr. Coelho was severely injured.
What of the final piece of the early evidence--Cook's record as a child molester? It too is quite bogus. At the trial, the police tried to rescue some credibility on the point. An officer said that Cook had been seen abusing a child a few weeks before Rachel's murder. One might wonder why that was not mentioned at the time. Nevertheless, the judge asked the officer how he knew that. The officer replied that someone, unnamed, had told him. The judge accepted that so-called "evidence" as clear and unequivocal. I must inform the House that I know of no evidence that Cook has ever posed any threat to children.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1992-06-09/Debate-20.html
