Rendering terrorists and the convention against torture

Human Rights Law Review

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 339-346

  Joseph, Sarah ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 30744470645     PISSN: 14617781     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngi018     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. 233/03, CAT/C/34/D/233/2003 (2005).
2. Ibid. at para. 2.4.
3. Ibid. at para. 4.7.
4. Ibid. at para. 2.4.
5. Ibid. at para. 5.3.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid. at para. 12.29.
8. Ibid. at para. 12.30.
9. Agiza was deported with another man, Muhammed al Zery [footnote added].
10. Supra n. 1 at para. 12.30.
11. Ibid.
12. It may be noted, however, that the State Party, in its later submissions, conceded that torture or at least ill-treatment may have taken place.
13. See also supra n. 1 at paras 4.21 and 9.2.
14. Ibid. at para. 4.24.
15. See also ibid. at para. 4.22.
16. Ibid. at para. 5.4.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid. at para. 5.8.
19. Ibid. at para. 11.15.
20. Ibid. at para. 11.14.
21. Ibid. at para. 4.11.
22. Ibid. at para. 4.9. See Security Council Resolution 1373, 28 September 2001, S/RES/1373 (2001), at paras 2(c) and 3(g).
23. Ibid. at para. 5.3.
24. Ibid. at para. 13.4.
25. See, for example, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture: Egypt, 23 December 2002, CAT/C/CR/29/4.
26. Supra n. 1 at para. 13.4.
27. Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey, Application nos 46872/99 and 46951/99, Judgment of 4 February 2005, at paras 76-7. This decision was made even though Turkey had extradited the two men in violation of an interim order to defer the extradition by the Court (see paras 128-9). A discussion of the case can be found in Agiza v Sweden, supra n. 1 at paras 12.20-5 and 12.36.
28. See also Mowbray, 'A New Strasbourg Approach to the Legal Consequences of Interim Measures', (2005) 5 Human Rights Law Review xx.
29. Supra n. 1 at para. 13.7.
30. Ibid. at para. 13.8.
31. Article 22 is the provision that permits individual complaints to the Committee; it comes into operation if a State makes a relevant declaration under Article 22(1).
32. Most Article 3 cases are brought prior to deportation rather than after deportation. Clearly, a finding is of greater utility to a complainant in the former instance.
33. CAT/C/31/D/199/2002 (2003);
34. 11 IHRR 400 (2004).
35. Supra n. 1 at para. 13.5. Agiza's wife was eventually granted a humanitarian visa to remain in Sweden (para. 10, ibid.)
36. Ibid. at para. 13.4.
37. See, for example, Chandrasekaran and Finn, 'US Behind Secret Transfer of Terror Suspects', Washington Post, 11 March 2002
38. and, Steele, 'A Global Gulag to Hide the War on Terror's Dirty Secrets', Guardian, 14 January 2005.
39. Supra n. 1 at para. 13.4.
40. The US has not made a relevant declaration under Article 22(b), CAT, so no individual complaint against the US can be considered by the Committee.
41. States Parties to human rights treaties, including CAT, are responsible for the extraterritorial acts of their public agents. See Joseph, Schultz and Castan, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases Commentary and Materials, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) at 87-91.
42. Supra n. 1 at para. 8.2.
43. Ibid. at para. 12.11.
44. Ibid. at para. 12.12.
45. Ibid. at para. 12.15.
46. Ibid. at paras 12.15-6.
47. Ibid. at para. 12.13.
48. Ibid. at para. 12.34.
49. Ibid.
50. Indeed, one may note that confidential information was suppressed in the reporting of the Agiza case. See text supra accompanying n. 21.
51. See Byahuranga v Denmark (1222/03), 9 December 2004, CCPR/C/82/D/1222/ 2003
52. 12 IHRR 326 (2005), dissenting opinion of Ruth Wedgwood and Maxwell Yalden.
53. See also Joseph, 'Human Rights Committee: Recent Cases, (2005) 5 Human Rights Law Review 105 at 115.
54. And see Joseph, Schultz and Castan, supra n. 38 at 384.
55. See Committee Against Torture, Rules of Procedure, 9 August 2002, CAT/C/ 3/Rev.4.
56. See, for example, Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002) at Chapter 4. Indeed the US Justice Department queried the absolute prohibition on torture in an infamous internal memo of 1 August 2002, available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/ documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf. After that memo became public, it was withdrawn and replaced by a new memo of 30 December 2004, which reasserted the US's support for the absolute ban on torture.
57. The second memo is available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/dagmemo.pdf.