A. whereas, in its resolution of 6 July 2006, Parliament decided that 'the Temporary Committee would continue its work for the remainder of its established twelve-month term, without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 175 of its Rules of Procedure on the possibility of extending the term', B. whereas, in adopting its resolution of 22 November 1990 on the Gladio affair1, it drew attention, more than 16 years ago, to the existence of clandestine operations involving intelligence services and military organisations without adequate democratic control, C. whereas the Member States cannot circumvent the requirements imposed on them by European Community (EC) and international law by allowing other countries' intelligence services, which are subject to less stringent legal provisions, to work on their territory; whereas, in addition, the operations of intelligence services are consistent with fundamental rights only if adequate arrangements exist for monitoring them, D. whereas the principle of the inviolability of human dignity is enshrined in international human rights law, notably in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the preamble to and Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and whereas that principle is guaranteed by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights; whereas this principle appears in most Member States' constitutions, as well as in Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union2 and whereas that principle should not be undermined, even for the purposes of security, in times of peace or war, E. whereas the principle of inviolability of human dignity underlies every other fundamental right guaranteed by international, European and national human rights instruments, in particular the right to life, the right to freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to liberty and security, the right to protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, F. whereas extraordinary rendition and secret detention involve multiple violations of human rights, in particular violations of the right to liberty and security, the freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to an effective remedy, and, in extreme cases, the right to life; whereas, in some cases, where rendition leads to secret detention, it constitutes enforced disappearance, G. whereas the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens) from which no derogation is possible and the obligation to protect against, investigate and sanction torture is an obligation owed by all states (erga omnes), as provided by Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the related case law, Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and national constitutions and laws; whereas specific conventions and protocols on torture and monitoring mechanisms adopted at the European and international level demonstrate the importance attached to this inviolable norm by the international community; whereas the use of diplomatic assurances is incompatible with this obligation, 1 OJ C 324, 24.12.1990, p. 201. OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1. 2 PE 382.246v02-00 XM 4/77 RR\382246XM.doc