Editing Extraordinary rendition (section)

==== Council of Europe investigation and its two reports ====
On 25 November 2005, the lead investigator for the [[Council of Europe]], Swiss lawmaker [[Dick Marty]] announced that he had obtained latitude and longitude coordinates for suspected black sites, and he was planning to use satellite imagery over the last several years as part of his investigation. On 28 November 2005, EU Justice Commissioner [[Franco Frattini]] asserted that any EU country which had operated a secret prison would have its voting rights suspended.<ref>{{cite news | first=Paul | last=Ames |title=EU May Suspend Nations With Secret Prisons | date=28 November 2005 | publisher=[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]]|location=United States | url=https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1352347 }}</ref> In a preliminary report, Dick Marty declared that it was "doubtful that European governments, or at least their intelligence services, were unaware" of the CIA kidnapping of a "hundred" persons on European territory and their subsequent rendition to countries where they may be tortured.<ref name="DickMarty_PDF_2006-01-22">Directed by Swiss senator Dick Marty, Entitled "Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states," see: {{cite web|url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_01_06_detention.pdf |title=Information memorandum II on the alleged secret detentions in Council of Europe states }}, Dick Marty, 22 January 2006</ref>

The report from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe directed by Dick Marty, and made public on 7 June 2006, was titled: "Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states."<ref>June 2006 Council of Europe report available here: [http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?Link=/CommitteeDocs/2006/20060606_Ejdoc162006PartII-FINAL.htm HTML] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060610064258/http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?Link=%2FCommitteeDocs%2F2006%2F20060606_Ejdoc162006PartII-FINAL.htm |date=10 June 2006 }} and [http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2006/20060606_Ejdoc162006PartII-FINAL.pdf PDF] formats.</ref>

Following the publication of this report, the Council of Europe published its draft Recommendation and Resolution document which
found grounds for concern with the conduct of both the US and member states of the EU and expresses concern for the disregard of international law and the Geneva Convention. Following a 23-point resolution the document makes five recommendations.
* 1 refers to its Resolution on alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states.
* 2 recalling its previous recommendation on the legality of the detention of persons by the United States in Guantanamo Bay
* 3 urges the Committee of Ministers to draft a recommendation to Council of Europe member States containing:
:common measures to guarantee more effectively the human rights of persons suspected of terrorist offences who are captured from, detained in or transported through Council of Europe member States; and a set of minimum requirements for "human rights protection clauses", for inclusion in bilateral and multilateral agreements with third parties, especially those concerning the use of military installations on the territory of Council of Europe member States.
* 4 urgently requests that: an initiative be launched on an international level, expressly involving the United States, an Observer to the Council of Europe, to develop a common, truly global strategy to address the terrorist threat. The strategy should conform in all its elements with the fundamental principles of our common heritage in terms of democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law. Also, a proposal be considered, in instances where States are unable or unwilling to prosecute persons accused of terrorist acts, to bring these persons within the jurisdiction of an international court that is competent to try them. One possibility worth considering would be to vest such a competence in the International Criminal Court, whilst renewing invitations to join the Court to the United States and other countries that have not yet done so.
* 5 recommends improving the Council of Europe's ability to react rapidly and effectively to allegations of systematic human rights abuse involving several member States.

Several months before the publication of the Council of Europe report directed by Dick Marty, [[Gijs de Vries]], the EU's antiterrorism coordinator, asserted in April 2006 that no evidence existed that extraordinary rendition had been taking place in Europe. It was also said that the European Union's probe, and a similar one by the continent's leading human rights group had not found any human rights violations nor other crimes that could be proven to the satisfaction of the courts.<ref name="BostonGlobe060421">[https://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/04/21/eu_official_no_evidence_of_illegal_cia_action/ EU official: No evidence of illegal CIA action: Antiterror chief advises committee], ''[[The Boston Globe]]'', 21 April 2006</ref> This denial from a member of the [[executive power]] of the EU institutions has been questioned by the [[European Parliament]] report, which was accepted by a vast majority of the Parliament in February 2007 (''[[#European Parliament's investigation and report|See below:The European Parliament's 14 February 2007 report]]'').

On the other hand, Dick Marty explained the difference of approach concerning terrorism between the EU and the US as following:
<blockquote>While the states of the Old World have dealt with these threats primarily by means of existing institutions and legal systems, the United States appears to have made a fundamentally different choice: considering that neither conventional judicial instruments nor those established under the framework of the laws of war could effectively counter the new forms of international terrorism, it decided to develop new legal concepts. This legal approach is utterly alien to the European tradition and sensibility, and is clearly contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.<ref name="BBC_NOL_2006-06-07">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5055872.stm Rendition and the rights of the individual], [[BBC News]], 7 June 2006</ref></blockquote>

However, despite Marty's claims, the European Parliament investigations uncovered cooperation between European [[secret services]] and governments and the extraordinary renditions programs, making such a clear-cut distinction over-simplistic (''[[#European Parliament's investigation and report|see below]]''). Dick Marty himself has not accepted such a dualistic approach, as he showed that for the British government also, the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism was alleged to be so grave that the balance of liberties had to be reconsidered.<ref name="BBC_NOL_2006-06-07" /> Marty's report stated that:

<blockquote>The compilation of so-called "black lists" of individuals and companies suspected of maintaining connections with organisations considered terrorist and the application of the associated sanctions clearly breach every principle of the fundamental right to a fair trial: no specific charges, no right to be heard, no right of appeal, no established procedure for removing one's name from the list.<ref name="BBC_NOL_2006-06-07" /></blockquote>

The second report was released on 8 June 2007<ref>{{cite web|url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/marty_08_06_07.pdf |title=Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report }}&nbsp;{{small|(528&nbsp;KB)}}, [[Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe|Council of Europe Parliamentary]] Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, 7 June 2007</ref>