Doc. 11302 Report relating to the co-operation between the CIA and the Italian military intelligence constituted a state secret, and that, on the Abu Omar case, he “was following Mr Berlusconi’s line”.275Worse still, the previous government had not explicitly raised the issue of state secrecy, whereas the current Minister of Justice had not hesitated to apply to the Constitutional Court, taking the view that the judges in Milan had encroached on an area reserved for the executive. 321. But how can it be forgotten that a senior Italian official, General Pollari, head of military intelligence, lied unashamedly to the European Parliament? How is it possible to explain the deafening silence of the Berlusconi and Prodi governments in relation to the kidnapping of Abu Omar – who held refugee status – by an American commando operation, and to the sabotaging by this operation of a major anti-terrorist investigation being carried out by the Milan prosecution service? 322. In my previous report, I had already applauded the competence and high-quality work of Milan’s judges and police. It is distressing to see now the kind of treatment to which judges of such merit as Armando Spataro and Ferdinando Pomarici are being subjected, prosecutors who have for years, not without great personal risk, been committed to combating terrorism, always effectively and with strict respect for the rule of law. The point has now been reached at which these judges stand accused of violating state secrecy! 323. In Italy, as in Germany, irrespective of the alternation in political power between parties, the same line has apparently been chosen, namely the preservation at any price of relations (and especially of interests) with the powerful ally, with “state secrecy” being invoked whenever an unpleasant truth might become public. This also enables conduct which is against the law to be covered up, and government offices to evade their responsibilities, and it is a very serious obstacle to the independence of the judicial system. 324. Our colleague Christos Pourgourides has demonstrated in his report adopted by the Assembly in April 2007 on “Fair trial issues in cases involving espionage and state secrecy”276how overly broad and unclear legislation on state secrecy has been abused to imprison and silence independent scientists, journalists and lawyers and whistleblowers. This inquiry shows that overly broad and unclear concepts of state secrecy also stand in the way of accountability of the executive for blatant human rights violations. In the same way as Mr Pourgourides has rightfully argued that information that is already in the public domain cannot be a “state secret”,277we must strive for recognition that information on serious human rights abuses committed by executive authorities must not be kept under wraps as “state secrets” either. I can only wish my friend Armando Spataro success in his struggle for these principles in Italy. 7.2.2. The role of the Canadian authorities in the case of Maher Arar 325. After the rather dark picture conveyed by the attitudes of several European governments, it is comforting to mention a positive example, that of Canada, which holds observer status with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 326. The case of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen abducted in New York and subjected to torture in a Syrian prison, must serve as an example to European states, showing that this kind of case may be understood in a more dignified way, more appropriate to a state governed by the rule of law. 327. A special commission of inquiry278conducted a separate inquiry into the facts and a detailed examination of the various political aspects, in order to establish the facts and to draw conclusions from the shortcomings evident in this case. The “Report of the events relating to Maher Arar – Analysis and recommendations” (364 pages) was published in July 2006. The commission’s official website provides ample information about the terms of reference of the inquiry, the role of the commissioner and counsel, and the commission’s rules of procedure. The website also provides in great detail background documents of the factual inquiry (including transcripts of public hearings, and summaries of in-camera hearings, reports from expert witnesses and the detailed “Fact Finder’s Report”). Similar information is published as regards the examination of political aspects. 275. See Reuters, 10 February 2007. 276. See Doc. 11031 (available at http://www.coe.int). 277. While this seems self-explanatory, it was called into question by the United States Court of Appeal, supra note 246, at p. 20, footnote 5. 278. See www.ararcommission.ca. 62