A/HRC/13/39/Add.5 not legally binding and thus unlikely to be complied with by States who otherwise violate their binding violations under international law. In addition, the authority providing the assurance might not have the power to enforce their compliance vis-à-vis its own security forces. Diplomatic assurances cannot be and are often not securely monitored; even the best monitoring mechanisms (e.g. ICRC, CPT) are no guarantee against torture. They neither provide for sanctions nor for recourses for the victims in case of a violation.204 The practice of diplomatic assurances leads to an erosion of the principle of non-refoulement. It encourages States to seek an exception to their obligation instead of using all their diplomatic and legal powers as States parties to hold other States parties accountable for their violations. In cases of violations of the principle upon return, despite of given assurances, both the sending and receiving States have a common interest in denying it and exert pressure to blur accountability. 244. A particular serious problem in the context of counterterrorism and obligatory departure of individuals is the use of extraordinary renditions of suspected terrorists.205 Extraordinary renditions were practised by the United States for the purpose of transferring terrorist suspects to countries with ‘harsher interrogation methods’ than those applied in the US detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), Abu Ghraib (Iraq), Bagram Air Base (Afghanistan) and similar detention centres abroad. Additionally, terrorist suspects were kidnapped in third States and brought to countries were they were exposed to interrogations involving torture and ill-treatment. European States have been complicit in rendition, e.g. by providing airspace and airports to rendition flights as investigations of the European Union and Council of Europe have revealed.206 The way Western States have dealt with extraordinary renditions is ambiguous. The case of Binyam Mohamed, where investigations into the alleged complicity of British MI5 agents have been initiated, as well as the recent judgment of an Italian court sentencing United States and Italian officials for their involvement in rendition practices go in the right direction. However, no official from the United States has so far been punished for complicity in torture. In the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian-Syrian citizen, who claims to have been sent to Syria by American officials to be tortured, the Canadian Government inquired and confirmed the torture allegations, cleared him of any links to terrorism and settled his case with a 10.5 million Canadian Dollars compensation and an official apology for any contribution by Canadian officials leading to his rendition.207 In contrast, he has received no apology from US authorities and 204 205 206 207 UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Report to the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2006/6, 23 December 2005, para 31. Marty, Dick, “Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report”, Doc. 11302 rev., Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights/Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 11 June 2007; Fava, Giovanni Claudio, “Extraordinary rendition in US counterterrorism policy: the impact on transatlantic relations”, Briefing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, P6-TA-PROV (2007)0032, 17 April 2007; Amnesty International (AI), “Below the Radar: Secret Flights to Torture and ‘Disappearance’”, AI Index AMR 51/051/2006, 05 April 2006. See also the Joint Study on Secret Detention in the Fight against Terrorism, A/HRC/13/42. Council of Europe, “Secretary General’s supplementary report under article 52 ECHR on the question of secret detention and transport of detainees suspected of terrorist acts, notably by or at the instigation of foreign agencies”, SG/Inf(2006)13, 14 June 2006; EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, “Opinion n°3/2006: The human rights responsibilities of the EU member states in the context of the CIA activities in Europe (“Extraordinary renditions)”, 25 May 2006; European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)(ed.), CIA- ‘Extraordinary Rendition’ Flights, Torture And Accountability – A European Approach, 2nd ed., Berlin, 2009. Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, “Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Analysis and Recommendations”, Ottawa, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 2006; Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian officials 67