PRESS CONFERENCE ON ALLEGED RENDITION FLIGHTS, DETENTION CENTRES BY SECRETARY-GENERAL OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE

PRESS CONFERENCE ON ALLEGED RENDITION FLIGHTS, DETENTION CENTRES

BY SECRETARY-GENERAL OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE

By looking into allegations of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) rendition flights and secret detention centres in Europe, the Council of Europe was exercising, not only its moral authority, but also its legal authority, Terry Davis, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference today.

Outlining the Council of Europe’s inquiry into the allegations, he said the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, under the European Convention on Human Rights, was absolute, applied in all circumstances, and was not negotiable.  It included an absolute ban on transferring any person to another jurisdiction, if there were substantial grounds to believe that the person would face a real risk of being subjected to ill treatment.  That was a settled case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Convinced that it could play a part in strengthening the United Nations work at the regional level, the Council of Europe worked closely with the United Nations to achieve shared objectives, he said.  One of the most striking examples of cooperation between the United Nations and the Council was the European Convention on Human Rights.  The Convention, which was directly derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was regarded as the bedrock of human rights protection in Europe.  The Council of Europe took breaches, or alleged breaches, of the Convention very seriously.

That was why the Council was paying particular attention to allegations of CIA rendition flights and secret detention centres in Europe, he said.  Human Rights Watch had first made the allegations that the CIA was maintaining secret detention centres in several Council of Europe member States, including Poland and Romania.  As Human Rights Watch was a serious and respected organization, he had immediately raised the matter with the representatives of those two countries in Strasbourg.  They, on behalf of their Foreign Ministers, had categorically denied the existence of any kind of illegal detention centres on their territory.

A second issue, he continued, concerned allegations that the CIA was using airports in several Council of Europe member States for “rendition” flights, or taking detainees to other countries, where they might be exposed to the risk of torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment.  If those allegations were true, the key question would be whether they took place with or without the knowledge and participation of the authorities of the Council of Europe countries concerned.  The very serious allegations concerned an increasing number of European countries, some of which had not been identified, he said.

In that regard, he had decided to use the power of inquiry, given to him under the European Convention on Human Rights, to make inquiries of member countries.  The subject of his inquiry was whether the Council of Europe member States complied with the Convention on Human Rights, and was not whether alleged CIA activities were lawful under United States or international law.  While the Council of Europe might have a very strong political and moral opinion about what the Americans were doing, he only had authority to investigate what was done by European countries that were Council members.

Continuing, he said he had asked two questions of the Council’s 46 member States.  The first question was what laws they had in force to protect individuals from forced disappearances, secret detentions and extraordinary renditions to places where they might be exposed to torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment, and how the Governments had enforced those laws since 1 January 2002.  The deadline for replay to his inquiry was 21 February.  The governments of 41 countries had replied within the deadline.  Another four had replied yesterday afternoon.  The only outstanding country was San Marino, for which he was not particularly bothered, as it did not even have an airport.

He said he would make an analysis of the replies he had received, which he then intended to make public.  Some of the replies were detailed, long and complex, and a team of lawyers at the Council was working on them.  He expected the analysis to be completed within days, and not weeks.  He hoped to make the analysis available before the end of next week.

His assessment, he said, would be based on several important facts.  The first was that the safeguard of human rights under the Convention must be guaranteed by law.  If such laws were not in place, inadequate or not affectively enforced, that must be put right.  That in itself might constitute a violation of the Convention.  Respect for the Convention imposed a positive obligation.  The Convention might also be violated through an omission to act.  Not knowing was not good enough, regardless of whether ignorance was intentional or accidental.  The obligation on member States to ensure rights protected by the Convention was linked to the exercise of their effective jurisdiction, including airports on their territory and the air space above it.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe consisted of delegations from all member parliaments, he added.  Every member country sent a delegation from its parliament to meet in the Parliamentary Assembly.  Dick Marty, a senator in Switzerland, had been appointed by the Assembly to look into what had happened.  An interim assessment he had published, in the form of an information note on 24 January, brought together the information available so far, and would form the basis of his final conclusions, which would be presented to the Parliamentary Assembly in due course.

He said the issue of rendition flights and secret detentions must be seen in the context of the fight against terrorism, and the implications of that fight for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  The Council of Europe was an intergovernmental organization, and the struggle against terrorism represented one of its key priorities.  It was, therefore, important that measures to fight terrorism were appropriate and effective.  The Council’s insistence on full compliance with its human rights standards in the fight against terrorism must be understood in that context.

The Council of Europe had begun to look into matters relating to respect for human rights in the fight against terrorism long before the recent allegations of CIA activities last November, he added.  While the intense media interest in the latest case had certainly helped, it had not prompted the Council’s activities.

He stressed that the subject of the Council’s inquires was not what the Government of the United States or any of its agencies might have done on the territory of European States.  Rather, the inquiry was whether those States had acted in line with their obligations, especially their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture.  The safeguard of human rights protected under those conventions must be guaranteed by law.  If such laws were not in place, or were not adequately enforced, appropriate action would be taken.

Answering a correspondent’s question, he said he had not contacted the Government of the United States, because that country was not a member of the Council of Europe.  In the first place, the country was not in Europe and, in the second place, the country would not accept the standards that applied to human rights in Europe, in particular with regard to the death penalty.

In reply to other correspondents’ questions, he said the European Convention on Human Rights applied to everyone who was physically in Europe, whether he or she was residing or staying there legally or illegally, including being in an airplane flying over Europe or being at an airport.  If somebody was arrested in the United States and taken to Europe, the convention would apply.

If a person was in the territory of a member State of the Council of Europe, then that person was protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, which was an absolute protection, he added.  There was no justification for torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. Member countries had the serious legal duty to protect a person’s human rights, if that person was taken into Europe by plane or whatever means.  It did not matter where the plane came from.  A Government of a member State had no right to “avert its eyes”.  If a plane landed, which was connected with illegal drug trafficking, the State would look into that.  The same applied with indications of human rights breaches.

Asked what action he would take if a particular country was found to be in dereliction of their human rights duties, he answered that he was analyzing the replies received from Governments, and taking into account Dick Marty’s report, which was a helpful and comprehensive collection of available information, including non-governmental organization reports.  The analysis would be published, and he would report to the Committee of Ministers, the governing body of the Council, and include recommendations, which would depend on the seriousness of a breach.  Whether he envisioned penalties or a correction was a hypothetical question, he said, which depended on the nature of the breach.  If a country had not made a provision in the law, he would expect a correction.  If it was a breach of that law, that would be a serious matter, to be discussed by the Meeting of the Committee of Ministers.

Asked whether he really believed a country that told him it was not aware that a certain plane had landed on its territory, he said it was not up to him to question the integrity of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of France.  He would first have to study the report France had sent him.

Answering a correspondent’s question whether he was satisfied with the answers of all the member States, he said that most reports had come in just this week, some were lengthy and some had to be translated.  If the answers for a Government to his questions were not adequate, he would write back to ask the Government for clarification.  He did not know of any Government that had “held up its hand and said we have broken our obligations under the Convention”. 

Regarding another question, relating to how the investigation would proceed after a Government had denied any kind of complicity in this matter, for instance in such countries as Poland and Romania, he said he did not have a team of investigators to visit “all forests of Poland or mountains of Romania”, to ensure that there were no secret prisons.  He had to go on the basis of the evidence he had, but that evidence would be compared to the evidence provided by, for instance, Human Rights Watch.  He had received absolute assurance from both Poland and Romania that the Human Rights Watch information was incorrect, and he had written to the non-governmental organization asking on what the allegations had been based.  Neither Poland nor Romania had admitted to any breach of the Convention.

About reports and allegations that Camp Justice in Diego Garcia, operated by the United States, had been used for holding or rendering prisoners, which had been denied by the British Government, he said he had to look into the applicability of the Convention in that situation, because Diego Garcia was not part of the United Kingdom.

Asked whether naming and shaming, by publishing his analysis, would be enough, he answered that sanctions were possible.  The Council of Europe could suspend or expel a country.  However, naming and shaming should not be disregarded as a sanction in a democratic country, as it would become a matter of public debate.

Nobody had complained about his inquiry, he said in response to another question.  In fact, several people, from a wide range of countries, had privately congratulated him on it.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record