CPT: 17TH GENERAL REPORT 5 PREFACE What had already been rumoured for some years to be the case was finally confirmed on 6 September 2006, at the most senior level possible. The Central Intelligence Agency of the United States has been holding and questioning, in secret locations overseas, a number of persons suspected of involvement in acts of terrorism. It is disturbing, at the beginning of the 21st century, to be obliged to recall basic principles long enshrined in both national and international law and which one had assumed would be inviolate. Deprivation of liberty must be based upon grounds and procedures established by law, be formally recorded, and be open to review by a judicial authority. Further, all persons deprived of their liberty by a public authority should be held in facilities which are officially recognised for this purpose and placed under the responsibility of a clearly identifiable entity. The practice of secret detention constitutes a complete repudiation of these principles. Secret detention can certainly be considered to amount in itself to a form of ill-treatment, both for the person detained and for members of his or her family. Further, the removal of fundamental safeguards which secret detention entails - the lack of judicial control or of any other form of oversight by an external authority (such as the ICRC) and the absence of guarantees such as access to a lawyer - inevitably heightens the risk of resort to ill-treatment. And in the light of the information now in the public domain, there can be little doubt that the interrogation techniques applied in the CIA-run facilities concerned have led to violations of the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. All right-minded persons acknowledge that resolute action is required to counter terrorism, and this may have to include some adaptations of the existing legal framework. However, throwing overboard basic principles that characterise societies committed to human rights and the rule of law can only invite ignominy. It has been claimed - by way of justification for these illegal practices - that information has been obtained that saved lives. Such claims are difficult to verify; and even if they are true, there remains the question whether the same (perhaps even more, and more reliable) information could not have been obtained using legal methods. Moreover, allowing a State's response to degenerate in this way may well have immediate negative effects in terms of both individual and collective security; ultimately, it could weaken the very fabric of our societies. Naturally, the CPT is particularly concerned by reports that certain of the above-mentioned secret detention facilities were located in Europe, within the Committee's own field of operations. In this context, the CPT has taken careful note of the conclusions reached by the Parliamentary Assembly on 27 June 2007 (Resolution 1562 (2007)), in the light of a detailed report from its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. The CPT's mandate extends to all forms of deprivation of liberty by a public authority that occur within the jurisdiction of a Party to the ECPT, irrespective of whether the deprivation of liberty is lawful or not and regardless of the identity of the public authority involved. As has been demonstrated in the recent past, the CPT will act promptly upon any concrete and credible information that it receives about possible unlawful detentions; anyone in possession of such information is invited to bring it to the attention of the Committee. It is axiomatic that any allegations or information indicative of secret or other forms of unlawful detention must be promptly and effectively investigated by the competent authorities and that, when appropriate, proceedings must be brought against those responsible for such acts. In the experience of the CPT, this has not always been the case. The issue of secret detention is closely linked to that of extra-judicial transfers of persons from one jurisdiction to another, so-called "renditions". The possible involvement of the security and intelligence services of Council of Europe member States in such transfers forms the backdrop of an on-going inquiry by the Secretary General under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the matter is also being pursued by the Parliamentary Assembly. From the standpoint of its mandate, the CPT is particularly concerned by the practice of rendition for the purposes of detention and interrogation outside the normal criminal justice system. Operations of this kind inevitably involve a risk of ill-treatment for the person concerned that no "assurances" can ever fully remove; it follows that the authorities of Parties to the ECPT should never offer assistance in the context of such operations. More generally, the CPT wishes to stress that, as a matter of principle, all transfers of persons from one jurisdiction to another should take place in accordance with established legal procedures.