74 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights may be held by the authorities. In the extreme, family members, friends, community leaders, ministers of religion might all qualify for detention and interrogation on the grounds that they have knowledge of individuals of interest to the authorities. The Panel was concerned at the growing trend to assign to intelligence agencies the power to detain people. In principle, intelligence bodies should not have detention powers; they certainly cannot be held to lower standards in terms of the treatment of detainees than their law enforcement colleagues; and any special investigative powers they are accorded must comply with basic human rights safeguards. The practical examples given below will testify to the importance of not diluting standards in this important arena of basic liberties. 2.2.1 Interrogation and arrest powers for the purpose of intelligence gathering The abuse of powers when key functions are handed over to intelligence agencies was a common theme at many Hearings, most prominently at the US Hearing in relation to the detention and interrogation programme of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The primary purpose of the US rendition and detention programme is supposedly to detain and interrogate persons suspected of involvement in terrorism with a view to gaining intelligence information. Setting aside temporarily the question of the disputed status of such detainees (see Chapter Three), it is not disputed that detainees have been held outside US territory in arbitrary and secret detention, denying them access to lawyers and, until recently, to any effective remedy. Nor has it been disputed that some have urged that the CIA be held to different (lower) standards in the treatment of detainees than would military or law enforcement agencies; or that provisions to bring the CIA in line with newly approved military guidance on the proper treatment of detainees have been vetoed; or that the use of coercive interrogations to extract information, thereby violating the absolute prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading, has been engaged in and indeed justified; and that in doing all this, impunity has been encouraged and the fabric of international human rights and humanitarian law has been damaged.169 At Hearings in other countries, albeit to a very different degree, the Panel heard concerns about the detention and interrogation of people by intelligence agencies for the purpose of intelligence gathering. In Australia, for example the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO),170 can issue questioning and/or detention warrants. Such warrants can relate to persons who are not necessarily criminal suspects, but who are believed to have information that will “substantially” assist the collection of intelligence relating to terrorism. Australian Government officials argued that the powers accorded to the intelligence services amounted to little more than a simple extension of existing information-gathering methods. On the contrary, 169 See Chapter Three. Summary of the EJP United States Hearing. 170 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2003 (ASIO Act).