Erstellt am: 23.05.2006 Autor: Jessica Heun Status: Bisher nicht definiert
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil… sometimes do evil
The European Union member states are facing serious allegations concerning secret flights carrying detainees to third countries well-known for the use of torture and to unlawful places, such as the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay.
Instead of constantly pointing the finger to the United States, it may be time EU citizens exert more pressure on their own governments involved in the so-called extraordinary rendition program of the US.
The temporary committee (TDIP), set up in January 2006 by the European Parliament, is charged to investigate possible illegal activities - extraordinary rendition, detention at secret sites, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners - carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), other US agents or intelligence services of other third countries. The investigation seeks to determine the extent of the member states' involvement in any illegal activities that may have taken place on European Union territory, including acceding and candidate countries.
The 46 members of the committee have obtained data from Eurocontrol, the European air safety agency, as well as gathered information through more than 50 hours of testimony. This testimony has come from victims of extraordinary rendition and torture, such as German citizen Khaled el-Masri, abducted at the Macedonian border and transferred to Afghanistan where he was held and tortured, and from individuals who have witnessed first-hand the willingness of governments to use information obtained through torture, as was affirmed by former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray. In addition, a Committee delegation travelled to Macedonia to question officials and was on a similar fact-finding mission in the US.
The results of the investigations are startling. The first interim draft report reveals that within the framework of the war on terrorism since 9/11, the violation of human and fundamental rights has become a widespread, regular practice in which the majority of European countries are involved - either by passivity or by complicity. The report deplores the fact that the CIA has, on several occasions, been responsible for the illegal abduction and detention of alleged terrorists on the territory of member states and for extraordinary renditions concerning European nationals. In these cases, the CIA has used aircraft hired by fictitious airlines or regular companies to secretly abduct, detain and transfer from Europe terror suspects to countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Afghanistan in which torture is everyday business. This practice was at times "legalised" by diplomatic assurances not to torture. Diplomatic assurances in relation to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment have also become popular within the EU itself; The United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria rely on assurances made by countries such as Egypt, Uzbekistan, Turkey and Russia.
Taking into account the well-documented torture and inhuman treatment of individuals in certain countries, it seems irresponsible as well as dangerous to rely on these diplomatic assurances. Furthermore, the use of diplomatic assurances in relation to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment undermines the non-refoulement obligation enshrined in several international treaties and a principle of customary international law "No State Party shall expel, return ('refouler') or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."
The report not only concludes that some authorities in Europe have most likely been aware that suspects were being detained on their territory, but goes so far as to suggest that some authorities even actively took part in the rendition, as was the case of Swedish officials who handed over two Egyptian suspects, Muhammad al-Zary and Ahmed Agiza, to US agents who then flew them to Egypt in December 2001.
It is not only the Committee that has come up with the conclusions found in the report; human rights watchdogs Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, acknowledge a clear trend within the EU towards using methods of transferring suspects across borders without the requirements of due process. The EU and its member states will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the image of a clean record they claim to still have. The statements of Gijs Vries, the EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator, and Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, before the Committee are indicative of European authorities turning a blind eye to these illegal activities; Mr. de Vries stated that the European Parliament investigation had not uncovered rights abuses while Solana contented that " I have no information that tells me with certainty that any of the accusations, allegations, rumors, et cetera that have taken place are true."
These are surprising statements against the background of a similar enquiry that the Council of Europe launched on 1st November 2005 for which Dick Marty was appointed rapporteur. His final report concluded that "there is a great deal of coherent, convergent evidence pointing to the existence of a system of 'relocation' or 'outsourcing' of torture," and that there are good reasons to believe "European governments were aware of what's going on."
It seems that some evil has been committed, and it is time to remove the hands from the authorities' eyes, ears and mouths to uncover the truth. The parliament inquiry work already put some pressure on national governments. Especially after the trip to the US were - according to the committee rapporteur Giovanni Claudio Fava - "more than one source in the CIA...told (us) that between 30 and 50 people have been transported by extraordinary rendition" - European national governments will find it hard to hold their silence.
"Extradition" is a formal procedure whereby a person who is suspected of having committed a crime in one country is transferred to another country for the purpose of interrogation, detention or carrying out a sentence. It is either regulated by international law or by bilateral agreements. The term "rendition" or “extraordinary rendition” are not legal terms but rather the description of an illegal practice. Occasionally, both are used as synonyms for transferring a person outside the legal defined procedures to another country with the risk that the person be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, looking to the history of the use of the terms, one can distinguish between both. Whereas the U.S. has used the term "rendition" since the Reagan era for the extra-legal transfer of an individual from one state to another, especially to bring suspected terrorists into the United States or to another country in order for them to stand trial before courts, since 9/11 the term "extraordinary rendition" has the purpose of gathering intelligence by sending detainees to states well-known for widespread and systematic torture, including Syria, Egypt, and Morocco.
The “black sites”, the secret detention places in which individuals are held, circumvent any legal procedures and are not monitored by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The right to a fair process and the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment are core rights under all International Human and Humanitarian law (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and the Four Geneva Conventions on the Law of War) and under European Law (The Treaty on European Union (Art. 6); Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Europe the Charter of Fundamental Rights). The obligation not to transfer a person to a place where he or she is at risk of torture is known as the principle of non-refoulement.
