Doc. 11302 Report 152. In terms of protections, Romania’s key obligations seem to be to give “due regard to United States’ operational and security concerns”,119and to “take all reasonable measures within its power to ensure the protection, safety and security of United States forces’ property”.120 153. I have viewed the Romanian Access Agreement in sharpest focus, however, when I consider it in the light of testimony received from Romanian and American officials about the bilateral “operating agreements” that prevailed previously. Sources on both sides confirmed to me that the provisions of the December 2005 Access Agreement are best understood as arrangements that have prevailed for several years but have only latterly been formalised. 154. This incremental method of formalising such “bilaterals” has in fact been used by the United States in other countries in which its forces have been undertaking important detention operations in the context of the “war on terror”. The most conspicuous example is Afghanistan, where last year’s Accommodation and Consignment Agreement for Lands and Facilities at Bagram Airfield121(signed on 28 September 2006) represents the furthest extension of the United States model of permissions and protections that I have yet to encounter.122It was described in testimony before a United States court as being an agreement that “follows similar such arrangements dating back to at least 2003”.123Indeed, I am aware of an earlier document referred to as “Note No. 202”,124which indicates that the initial bilateral arrangements in Afghanistan – in strikingly similar terms to the situation in Romania – were agreed upon essentially by members of the executive125without reference to parliamentary oversight mechanisms. 155. The Romanian authorities have indicated to us on two occasions that the NATO framework described here has been the basis for the operations of the CIA in Romania. The first reference came in response to my question about whether the government is “systematically informed of the activities of foreign secret services (in particular the CIA) on national territory”.126Romania replied127by citing the NATO framework’s Agreement on Classified Information and a bilateral military instrument, the Agreement on the Protection of Military Classified Information,128thus making clear that CIA activities now fall unambiguously under the secrecy 117. See Romanian Access Agreement, 6 December 2005, ibid., at Article II.4. 118. See Romanian Access Agreement, 6 December 2005, ibid., at Article IX. 119. See Romanian Access Agreement, 6 December 2005, ibid., at Article II.3. 120. See Romanian Access Agreement, 6 December 2005, ibid., at Article VI.1. 121. See the Accommodation Consignment Agreement for Lands and Facilities at Bagram Airfield between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (represented by HE General Abdul Rahim Wardak, Minister of Defence) and the United States of America, made and entered into by the Host Nation and the Lessee on 28 September 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Bagram Agreement”); copy on file with the rapporteur. 122. See, for example, the Bagram Agreement, 28 September 2006, ibid., at paragraph 9: “The host nation [Afghanistan] covenants and warrants that the United States shall have exclusive, peaceable, undisturbed and uninterrupted possession of the premises during the existence of this agreement. The United States shall hold and enjoy the premises during the period of the agreement without any interruption whatsoever by the host nation or its agents.” As is clearly stated in paragraph 13, the Bagram Agreement of 2006 “supersedes all previous agreements between the United States and host nation for the use of Bagram Airfield” – implicitly meaning that any formal or informal arrangements that had prevailed prior to September 2006 had finally been brought into one coherent written text. A similar situation can surely be said to apply in Romania with the signature of the Access Agreement of December 2005. 123. See Declaration of Colonel Rose M. Miller, Commander of Detention Operations, CJTF-76, in Ruzatullah et al v. Rumsfeld, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 19 November 2006; at paragraph 5. Also note Colonel Miller’s statements that “each nation separately controls access to its respective compound on the Airfield” and that “the United States does not have complete, plenary jurisdiction”. 124. Note No. 202, dated 26 September 2002, is reproduced in a translated document obtained by Amnesty International, which transmits the concurrence of the Afghanistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs with this note to the United States Embassy in Kabul; see Document No. 93 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (America and Canada Political Affairs Division), dated 28 May 2003. 125. Note No. 202 was signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan, Doctor Abdullah, on behalf of the transitional government. No reference is made to any pursuant procedure for approval of this document, nor am I aware of one having taken place. Furthermore, in the final paragraph, “the parties waive any and all claims against each other for damage to or loss or destruction of property owned by either party, or death or injury to any military or civilian personnel of the armed forces of either party, as a result of activities in Afghanistan under this agreement.” 126. See my letter of 19 December 2005 to chairpersons of national delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which contained “Questions which members of the Parliamentary Assembly might put to their respective governments in their national parliaments,” reproduced as Appendix II to Information Memorandum II, 22 January 2006. 127. “Answers of the Romanian delegation to the questionnaire on the alleged secret detention centres”, appended to the letter to me from Gyorgy Frunda, chairperson of the Romanian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, 20 January 2006; at p. 1. 31