AN official from Amnesty International has rejected Foreign Minister K D Knight’s criticism that the human rights group unfairly criticised Jamaica’s human rights record and investigation into last year’s West Kingston violence.

The official, researcher Piers Bannister, told the Observer that he took issue with Knight’s recent letter to Irene Khan, secretary-general of the watchdog group.

Knight had complained that the group’s 2001 report was “not even-handed” — especially regarding its assessment of last year’s West Kingston killings and a subsequent inquiry into the violence. Twenty-seven people died, including two members of the security forces.

Knight complained that Amnesty’s comments on West Kingston offered “a distorted interpretation of the procedures which govern the inquiry, and appear to be based upon the allegations of those who are opposed to the commission”.

He explained, for example, that Amnesty’s report referred to pictures of police shooting at gunmen. But it failed, Knight wrote, to also mention another film — taken from a helicopter over the scene — showing people with high-powered weapons moving about on the streets, firing at the security forces. These video images were also televised nationally, Knight noted.

But Bannister told the Observer, in an e-mail, that “TV footage clearly showed police officers discharging automatic weapons indiscriminately, as the guns were held about their heads”. He said this “suggests a clear violation of international law and standards governing the use of lethal force by police officers.”

He also said the commission of inquiry into the shootings “failed in a number of key areas to conform to international standards”. The inquiry’s lack of an “independent investigator meant it had to rely upon statements and evidence collected and submitted by the police, whose behaviour was under investigation by the inquiry”, he wrote.

Knight, however, had insisted that the commission had been established in conformity with the Inquiry Act’s provisions and “adhered to standard Canadian practice for such inquiries”.

Bannister, on another front, said the inquiry was not structured so as to “prevent witnesses from being intimidated into not testifying”.

Knight had noted that “independent counsel were provided, through the office of the Public Defender, who has the ability to investigate matters on behalf of citizens and his office was available to anyone who needed it.”

Bannister also complained that “the failure of the inquiry to appoint an independent investigator meant it had to rely upon statements and evidence collected and submitted by the police, whose behaviour was under investigation by the inquiry”.

Bannister, despite his criticisms, acknowledged that Amnesty still did not have all the facts. It would, he wrote, make a “detailed response to the report of the Commission of Inquiry once it receives a copy of the findings in full”.

Earlier this week, the commission ruled that the police acted responsibly and were restrained in their use of force, which limited the death toll.

Bannister said Amnesty would respond to Knight personally once it had received a copy of his letter.