Doc. 11302 Report 147. When examined with hindsight, the 2001 agreement reveals a permissive attitude on the part of the Romanian authorities, broadly towards United States military and quasi-military operations on Romanian territory, and in particular towards the actions of American service personnel. The “SOFA Supplemental” created a “special regime of access on national territory”,110which it extended not only to “members of the military forces”111in a conventional sense, but also to “members of the civilian airline companies”112and anyone else who is “declared by the American authorities to be part of the United States armed forces, and can present a travel order issued by the United States military”. The breadth of the designation used here represented the perfect opening for the CIA to conduct its clandestine operations in the country.113 148. It is my conclusion that under the October 2001 bilateral agreement, along with any additional classified annexes agreed at that time or subsequently, personnel brought into the country under the banner of the United States military have in practice operated on Romanian territory with complete freedom from scrutiny or interference by their national counterparts ever since. 149. In this context it is important to consider a more recent Access Agreement between Romania and the United States, signed on 6 December 2005, which deals primarily with the activities of United States forces based at a selected number of Romanian military facilities.114 150. Under this new agreement, United States forces – including their “civilian component” – enjoy extraordinarily free use of certain Romanian airbases and other facilities for “training, transit … refuelling of aircraft, accommodation of personnel, communications, staging and deploying of forces and material … and for other such purposes as the parties or their designated authorities may agree.”115 151. In terms of permissions, all United States Government aircraft and vehicles are “free from inspection”. In addition, an apparently blanket authorisation to “over-fly, conduct aerial refuelling, land and takeoff in the territory of Romania” is granted to both United States Government aircraft and “civil aircraft … operating exclusively under contract to the United States Department of Defense”.116Indeed, an equally permissive approach is applied to almost every aspect of the agreement, from the “construction activities” undertaken by United States forces117to the apparently unquestioning acceptance as “valid” of “all professional licences”.118 109. “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. 110. This phrase is understood to describe the permission given to “enter, exit and move freely within the territory”, with a United States military travel order sufficing as identification. 111. See “Romanian SOFA Supplemental”, 30 October 2001, supra note 108, at Article II.2. 112. It is unclear whether this reference to “the civilian airline companies” indicates that there is a specific numbered or named list of United States-registered companies whose members fall under the “special regime of access” referred to. However, in a comparable scenario, it has in the past been disclosed in documents released by the United States Department of Defense under a Freedom of Information Act request that specific United States aviation companies (including several of those known to be involved in detainee transfer operations) have been awarded “classified contracts” by certain units of the United States armed forces. See Seth Hettena, The Associated Press, “AP: Navy office contracted planes used in CIA missions”, 24 September 2005, available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-24navy-cia_x.htm. 113. In addition, it is known that the meanings of important “cover” designations often used by the CIA are set forth in the 2001 “SOFA Supplemental”. These include the terms “civilian component”, “dependent” and “United States contractor” – all of which categories were also granted the same permissions and protections as conventional military officers. Unfortunately, I have not as yet been able to obtain the sections of the agreement in which the meanings of those terms are defined. 114. See “Agreement between the United States of America and Romania regarding the activities of United States Forces located on the territory of Romania”, done at Bucharest, 6 December 2005 (hereinafter “Romanian Access Agreement”); copy on file, submitted officially to the rapporteur in May 2006 after its adoption by the Romanian Parliament. It is worth pointing out that the references to “implementing arrangements” in this text afford the parties a considerable degree of latitude as to how they put the agreement into practice: “The technical details regarding the agreed facilities and areas shall be in accordance with Implementing Arrangements to be concluded for each facility and area” [at Article II.1]; and “As appropriate, the parties or their designated authorities may enter into implementing arrangements to carry out the provisions of this agreement” [at Article XI]. 115. See Romanian Access Agreement, 6 December 2005, ibid., at Article II.1. It is relevant to note that the “designated authorities” in question are the Ministry of National Defence of Romania and the Department of Defense of the United States of America, respectively. 116. See Romanian Access Agreement, 6 December 2005, ibid., at Article VII. In the final clause, the fact that the exempted civil aircraft have to be under exclusive contract to the Department of Defense (rather than the United States Government more generally) is a clear indication of the military nature of the arrangements. 30