CAT/C/56/D/536/2013 2.8 The complainants also submit that enforced disappearances and secret detentions 17 constitute torture, and they refer to the Committee’s 2006 concluding observations in which the Committee states that the United States should ensure that no one is detained in any secret detention facility under its de facto effective control. 18 They refer as well to the report on the inquiry of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, 19 which found that “the abuse of detainees … cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own” but that “officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality , and authorized their use against detainees”. 2.9 The complainants submit that section 269.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which gives the State party jurisdiction over the offence of torture, “reflects the recognition of Parliament that freedom from such intentional mistreatment is a basic human right”. 20 The provision explicitly applies to officials and persons acting at the direction or with the acquiescence of an official. Under sections 21 and 22 of the Code, liability extends to persons who commit an offence and those who aid, abet, form a common intention to carry out, counsel, procure, solicit or incite another person to be a party to the offence. Section 7 (3.7) of the Code gives the State party jurisdiction over torture committed abroad when the acc used is present in territory under the State party’s jurisdiction. 2.10 The complainants submit that, on 19 September 2011, Mr. Bush travelled to Toronto to give a talk. At the time, it was widely reported that Mr. Bush would again 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Human Rights Committee, communication No. 1020/2001, Cabal and Pasini v. Australia, Views adopted on 7 August 2003, para. 8.4. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/56/156), 2001; Human Rights Committee, communication No. 74/1980, Estrella v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1983; European Court of Human Rights, Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom (applications No. 7511/76 and No. 7743/76), judgment of 23 March 1983, para. 26 and Gäfgen v. Germany (application No. 22978/0), judgment of 1 June 2010, paras. 91 and 108; Committee against Torture, summary account of the results of the proceedings concerning the inquiry on Peru, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/56/44), 2001, chap. V, sect. B, para. 186; concluding observations on Denmark, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/57/44), 2002, chap. III, para. 74 (c)-(d); concluding observations on Denmark (CAT/C/DNK/CO/5), 2007, para. 14; concluding observations on Japan (CAT/C/JPN/CO/1), 2007, para. 18; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992) on article 7, para. 6; concluding observations on Denmark (CCPR/CO/70/DNK), 2000, para. 12; Polay Campos v. Peru, para. 8.6; and communication No. 265/1987, Vuolanne v. Finland, Views adopted on 7 April 1989, para. 9.5. E/CN.4/2006/120, paras. 53 and 87; report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/63/175), 2008, paras. 70-85; Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement; Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, principle 7. Committee against Torture, Ali v. Tunisia, para. 15.4; European Court of Human Rights, Vala šinas v. Lithuania (application No. 44558/98), judgment of 24 July 2001. G. D. Solis, The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law at War (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 461-466; transcript of Senate confirmation hearings nominating Eric Holder as Attorney General of the United States, 16 January 2009, available from www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/us/politics/16text-holder.html?_r¼1&pagewanted¼all; E. Wallach, “Drop by drop: forgetting the history of water torture in U.S. courts”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 45, No. 2 (2007). Human Rights Committee, communication No. 440/1990, El-Megreisi v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 23 March 1994, para. 5.4. CAT/C/USA/CO/2, 2006, para. 17. Senate Armed Services Committee, Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody, 20 November 2008. Available from www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DetaineeReport-Final_April-22-2009.pdf. Federal Court of Appeal, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, judgment of 14 August 2009, para. 51. 5