|
The European
Parliament adopted a resolution based on the own-initiative report drafted by
Giovanni Claudio FAVA (PES, IT) on the Temporary Committee’s findings
on alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal
detention of prisoners. The report, which deplores the passivity of some
Member States in the face of illegal CIA operations, as well as the lack of
co-operation from the EU Council of Ministers, was approved with 382 votes in
favour, 256 against with 74 abstentions. The main
points of the report were as follows: - CIA
flights: Parliament agreed with the Temporary
Committee and concluded that "at least 1 245 flights operated by the CIA
flew into European airspace or stopped over at European airports between the
end of 2001 and the end of 2005". It regretted that European countries
had been "turning a blind eye" to such flights, which, "on
some occasions, were being used for extraordinary rendition or the illegal
transportation of detainees." The report stressed that working documents
published by the Temporary Committee provided "strong evidence of the
extraordinary renditions analysed by the committee, as well as of the
companies linked to the CIA, the aircraft used by the CIA and the European
countries in which the CIA aircraft made stopovers". Parliament
mentioned up to 21 cases of extraordinary rendition in which rendition
victims were transferred through a European country or were residents in a
European state at the time of their kidnapping. Bearing this in mind, the
report "calls on the countries of Europe to compensate the innocent
victims of extraordinary rendition". It went on to state that the CIA
has been using civil aviation rules to bypass the legal obligations for state
aircraft, including those operated by the military and the police, as
provided in the Chicago Convention. Parliament
condemned extraordinary rendition as an illegal instrument used by the United States in the fight against terrorism, and also condemned the condoning and concealing
of the practice, on several occasions, by the secret services and
governmental authorities of certain European countries. It called on the
Council and the Member States to issue a clear and forceful declaration
calling on the US Government to put an end to the practice of extraordinary
arrests and renditions, in line with the position of Parliament. -Secret
detention facilities: the report expressed deep concern that, in some
cases, "temporary secret detention facilities in European countries may have
been located at US military bases". It emphasised that the concept of"secret detention facility" included "not only prisons, but
also all places where somebody is held incommunicado, such as private
apartments, police stations or hotel rooms" - as in the well-publicised
case of Khaled El-Masri in Skopje. In an amendment passed with a narrow
majority (356 to 323), MEPs noted that, in light of the available
circumstantial evidence, it was not possible to acknowledge or deny that
secret detention centres were based in Poland. However, seven of the
fourteen detainees transferred from a secret detention facility to Guantánamo
in September 2006 coincide with those mentioned in a report by ABC News
(published in December 2005) listing the identities of twelve top Al Qaeda
suspects held in Poland. -Possible
use of torture: the report recalled that the programme of extraordinary
rendition is an extra-judicial practice "whereby an individual
suspected of involvement in terrorism is illegally abducted.....and/or transported
to another country for interrogation which, in the majority of cases,
involves incommunicado detention and torture". This was confirmed by the
victims - or their lawyers - who gave testimony to the committee. In light of
the available evidence, the report noted that there was a strong
possibility that some European countries may have received, knowingly or
unknowingly, information obtained under torture. Parliament took note of the
testimony to the Temporary Committee by Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, on the exchange of intelligence obtained under torture and the legal
opinion of Michael Wood, former legal advisor to the UK Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. It expressed its concern about Michael Wood's legal
opinion, according to which receiving or possessing information extracted
under torture, insofar as there is no direct participation in the torture, is
not per se prohibited by the UN Convention against Torture of 1989.
Parliament condemned any attempt to obtain information by means of torture,
regardless of who is involved. -Lack of
cooperation: Parliament denounced the lack of
cooperation of many Member States, and of the Council of the EU towards the
Temporary Committee. It stressed that the behaviour of Member States, and in
particular the Council and its Presidencies, fell far below the standard that
Parliament was entitled to expect. The serious lack of concrete answers to
the questions raised by victims, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the
media and parliamentarians only served to strengthen the validity of already well-documented allegations. In addition, it was wholly unacceptable that the
Council should first have concealed and then, at Parliament's request, only
supplied piecemeal information on the regular discussions held with senior
officials of the US Government, asserting that this was the only available
version. These shortcomings of the Council implicate all Member State governments since they have collective responsibility as members of the Council. The national
governments specifically criticised for their unwillingness to cooperate with
Parliament's investigations are those of Austria, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Britain. The report also gave detailed evidence of investigations of
illegal rendition or CIA flight cases involving Bosnia, Cyprus, Denmark, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Germany, Greece, Ireland, Romania, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. Parliament
also expressed its concern about the omissions in the statements made to the
Temporary Committee by the Council and its Secretary-General, regarding the
Council's discussions and knowledge of the methods used by the United States in its campaign against terrorism. It deplored the fact that he was unable to
supplement the evidence already in the possession of the Temporary Committee.
Parliament questioned too the real substance of the post of EU
Counter-terrorism Coordinator occupied by Gijs de Vries, since he was unable
to give satisfactory answers to the questions raised by the Temporary Committee.
It was of the opinion that a revision and strengthening of his competence and
power, as well as the increased transparency and monitoring of his activities
by Parliament must be undertaken in the near future. Parliament also
criticised the lack of cooperation evinced by the Director of the European
Police Office (Europol), Max-Peter Ratzel, and expressed its deep concern
about the refusals of the former and current Secretaries-General of NATO,
Lord Robertson and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, to appear before the Temporary
Committee. Policy
recommendations: Parliament made a series of
specific political and legal recommendations and went on to state that it
expected the Council to put pressure on all the governments concerned to give
full and thorough information to the Council and the Commission and, where
necessary, to start hearings and commission an independent investigation
without delay. It recalled the principles and values on which the EU based,
as provided in Article 6 of the TEU, and called on the EU institutions to
meet their responsibilities in relation to Article 7 of the TEU all other
relevant provisions of the Treaties, and to take all appropriate measures in
the light of the conclusions of the work of the Temporary Committee.
Parliament also instructed its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home
Affairs to follow up politically the proceedings of the Temporary Committee
and to monitor the developments. If no appropriate action had been taken by
the Council and/or the Commission, the committee must determine whether there
was a clear risk of a serious breach of the principles and values on which
the EU is based, and recommend any resolution, taking as a basis Articles 6
and 7 of the TEU, which may prove necessary in this context.
|
