REDRESS | |
The
Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights heard today its
first case involving a victim of the CIA rendition program. It heard
evidence supporting Khaled El-Masri’s claim that he was subjected to
torture and ill-treatment in an Afghan prison, after being wrongfully
arrested by Macedonian agents and handed over to a CIA rendition team
more than eight years ago.
|
|
EUROPE’S TOP HUMAN RIGHTS COURT HEARS RENDITION CASE
16 May 2012 – The European Court of Human Rights today heard its first case involving a victim of the CIA rendition program.
The Grand Chamber
of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) heard detailed evidence
supporting Khaled El-Masri’s claim that he was subjected to torture and
ill-treatment in a notorious Afghan prison, after being wrongfully
arrested by Macedonian agents and handed over to a CIA rendition team
more than eight years ago. After four months of detention he says he
was returned to Europe and dumped on an Albanian road in May 2004. Every
attempt at seeking justice by El-Masri has failed until now.
El-Masri is
represented in the case by a team of lawyers from the Open Society
Justice Initiative. REDRESS first made written observations as a third
party in the case before the ECtHR in 2011 (see here) and again this year (see here) on the rights of victims of extraordinary rendition
under international law to an investigation, remedy and reparation.
REDRESS has made detailed submissions to the Court on:
In the face of
repeated failures to adequately investigate such allegations across
Europe – including in the UK – REDRESS’ submission shows how
verification of the facts and public disclosure of the truth are
themselves part of what the states involved owe victims under
international law.
In support of its submission REDRESS provided the Court with an expert report (see here)
by clinical psychologist Dr Mary Robertson, which discusses how the
provision of a remedy, and identifying the perpetrators, can be crucial
to victims’ psychological recovery.
REDRESS’
international legal officer, Sarah Fulton, said: “Providing a remedy to
victims and getting to the bottom of what happened, and why, is vital
because it allows injustice to be acknowledged by the wider society and
helps victims to reclaim their dignity and come to terms with their
suffering.”
According to
Fulton: “Extraordinary rendition, and the torture and ill-treatment
associated with it, destroys lives. Its victims have the right, just
like any other persons whose rights have been violated, to have their
allegations properly investigated. Those investigations and their
findings must be as open to public scrutiny as possible, both for
democratic accountability and, crucially, for the sake of the victims
themselves. Leaving aside any monetary compensation, verification of
the facts and public disclosure of the truth are vital parts of what the
states involved owe victims under international law.”
Wednesday’s hearing
was the first time that a court heard the merits of El-Masri’s
complaint, even though several criminal and civil proceedings related to
his case were started in the United States, Spain, Germany and
Macedonia without result. His attempt to sue the CIA in the US courts
was rejected in 2006 under the “state secrets” doctrine, which allowed
the US Government to have the case dismissed without considering the
merits on the basis that it risked revealing classified information.
Efforts to encourage the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to
consider the US’ application of the “states secrets” doctrine, which
REDRESS also supported, have likewise not led anywhere.
To date, European
states alleged to have been implicated in the extraordinary rendition
programme have failed to properly address the allegations relating to
their involvement or to provide a remedy to victims. REDRESS believes
that this case presents the Court with an opportunity to emphasise to
States the obligations that they have to both the public and to
individual victims in such cases. It should also stand as a stark
example to those seeking to limit even further victims’ avenues for
justice, including the UK which, despite much criticism, remains
committed to introducing closed procedures in all cases raising national
security issues.
The Grand Chamber will now consider the case, before delivering its judgment later in the year.
REDRESS was represented in its amicus submissions by barristers Timothy Otty QC and Simon Pritchard of Blackstone Chambers.
For further information, please contact Eva Sanchis, Communications Officer, on eva@redress.org or +44 (0) 20 7793 1777.
Photo by Joy Garnett.
|
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment