For the almost five years that Canadian troops have been in Afghanistan, there has been controversy over what to do with captured Taliban fighters and other suspected insurgents.

The former Liberal government initially decided to turn prisoners over to the U.S. military, which was then leading the fight against al-Qaeda and other militants. But that policy did not always sit well at home.

Then, when the UN took over responsibility for quelling Afghan's insurgents — and when Washington began to develop a reputation for pushing the limits of the Geneva Convention on prisoners — Canada struck a deal with the new Afghanistan government to turn its prisoners over to Afghan security forces.

That was in December 2005, but the policy did not fully halt concerns over how these detainees were being treated. And so earlier this week, following days of pointed questions in Parliament, a new arrangement was struck with Afghanistan that gives Canadian officials full access to Kandahar jails. It's intended to ensure detainees aren't being tortured or mistreated.

The new rules, however, might come too late for any mistreatment that may have already happened.

Atrocities in Afghan jails were detailed recently by UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour, who reported horrible conditions in these jails, including torture, extended detention without trial and extortion.

The U.S. State Department's latest human rights assessment also concluded that Afghan torture tactics included "pulling out fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, beatings, sexual humiliation and sodomy."

Legal authorities in Canada have said Canadian soldiers involved in past transfers of captives to Afghan security forces — who have a bad reputation when it comes to torture — could be charged with assisting war crimes.

Canadian involvement?

Adding to the concern, 30 Afghan prisoners told the Globe and Mail earlier this month that they were beaten, whipped, frozen and starved once they were transferred from Canadian military custody to Afghan security forces.

Three more detainees taken to Afghan prisons alleged they were physically abused by Canadian soldiers. They were reported to have swollen eyes, cuts on their eyebrows, gashes to their forehead and slashes on their cheeks.

This was the report that had the government on the defensive all this week and sparked the policy change to allow Canadian officials direct access to what is going on in Afghan's jails.

"We will establish continuous liaison with the prison authorities for the purpose of verifying the state of detainees," Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor promised.

Under the Geneva Convention, governments are responsible for ensuring their detainees are treated humanely.

About face

This new policy is something of an about face for the Canadian government. As recently as March, O'Connor was saying there was no problem monitoring detainees in Afghan jails because Canada had signed an agreement with the international Red Cross to keep tabs on them.

A few days later, however, the Red Cross said that wasn't the case. It does its own monitoring of detainees but it is under no obligation to report on these conditions to other governments, nor does it do so. Spot inspections conducted in Afghan jails are only reported back to the Afghan government, the Red Cross said.

O'Connor was forced to apologize to the House for having provided misleading information. However, he continued to say that the Canadian government had not been made aware of any abuse of Afghan prisoners. So did Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as recently as this week.

But then, on Wednesday, the Globe and Mail published a report it had received under the Access to Information Act that suggested the government knew prisoners in Afghanistan jails could be subject to poor conditions. Although parts were blacked out, the newspaper said it was able to confirm that these blacked-out sections showed that the Canadian Embassy in Kabul had alerted the government last year that prisoners could be tortured once transferred to Afghan detention centres.

This should not have been a surprise. The Afghan government's own human-rights watchdog called torture in the country's detention centres standard police procedure, observed University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has expressed concern over the state of that country's prisons.

Dutch access

The Netherlands, which also has NATO forces in Afghanistan, had, it turns out, a better system. The Dutch government was guaranteed access to detainees by military forces and embassy officials, as well as the Red Cross. Written notification of a prisoner's transfer to a third party or any other significant changes was required.

American officials also secured full access to prisons for monitoring conditions. The U.S. government made efforts to improve crammed jails at Bagram in Afghanistan. The Bagram detention facility, which wasn't intended to be a long-term facility for detainees, had limited resources. Americans have since committed to a $10 million prison construction project and a program to train guards.

In Canada, calls have been made for more systematic monitoring of its captives. Attaran, for one, has presented two options. Following the American example, he suggested Canada assist and train Afghan guards, while bolstering detention facilities. The second, and more controversial idea, was to transport Afghanistan detainees to prisoner-of-war camps in Canada.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]