80 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights The terms “rendition” and “extraordinary rendition” have no specific legal meaning, but have come to describe the process of seizing and transferring terrorist suspects, usually without benefit of the normal legal procedures used in extradition, deportation, expulsion or removal, and without due process safeguards. Rendition is not itself a post-September 2001 development, but US policy in regard to this tactic dramatically changed after September 2001. In its present form, rendition involves the abduction of a person from one country, with or without the cooperation of the government of that country, and the subsequent transfer of that person to another country for detention and interrogation. The purpose of rendition appears also to have changed. The initiation of criminal proceedings is now rarely the primary purpose, and instead the main objective appears to be that of intelligence gathering, with its focus on interrogation and detention. Generally, no criminal charges are brought and no criminal trial is initiated. Although the US denies that people are rendered to other States for the purpose of interrogation using torture, or that it would transport a suspect to a country where it is believed that he or she would be tortured, there is ample evidence to suggest that persons rendered since 2001 have suffered torture and other ill-treatment at the hands of their captors.186 The US has argued that extraordinary rendition is vital in combating terrorism and maintains that it complies with international law.187 In defending the practice, the US has relied, at least in part, on States’ consent as a legal justification. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for example, has pointed to “cases where, for some reason, the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extraditions are not a good option. In those cases the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in a rendition. Such renditions are permissible under international law and are consistent with the responsibilities of those governments to protect their citizens.” 188 Even if extraordinary renditions were confined to the kinds of cases mentioned by Secretary of State Rice, the lawfulness of a forcible abduction does not depend solely on the consent of the host State. Extraordinary rendition violates numerous human rights, including the rights protecting individuals against arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance, forcible transfer, or subjection to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 186 For more information see summary of the EJP United States Hearing with further references and submissions. EJP Hearing at the European Union, including oral testimony by Claudio Fava, Rapporteur of the European Parliament Inquiry and information provided on the cases of Abu Omar and Khalid Al Masri. See also on individual cases, UN Human Rights Committee, Views of 6 November 2006, Alzery v. Sweden, Communication No. 1416/2005; UN Committee against Torture, Views of 20 May 2005, Agiza v. Sweden, Communication No. 233/2003, UN Doc. CAT/C/34/D/233/2003 (2005). See evidence provided at the EJP Canada Hearing and Commission Of Inquiry Into The Actions of Canadian Officials In Relation to Maher Arar, Reports of the Events Relating to Maher Arar, September 2006. 187 UN Committee against Torture, Consideration of the Second Periodic Report of the United States of America. UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.703, 12 May 2006, para. 38. 188 US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Department of State, “Remarks Upon Her Departure for Europe”, 5 December 2005.