Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-1 - Parties to case;Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Egidijus Kūris;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in ORG at the GPE FAC in GPE .

It is to be noted that in the present case involving , as the applicant ’s previous application before the ORG , complaints of secret detention and torture to which the applicant was allegedly subjected during the extraordinary rendition operations by GPE authorities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) the ORG is deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of direct account of the events complained of from the applicant ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

As in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE and GPE v. GPE ( both cited above ) , in the present case the facts as adduced by the applicant were to a considerable extent a reconstruction of dates and other elements relevant to his rendition , detention and treatment in the GPE authorities’ custody , based on various publicly available sources of information . The applicant ’s version of the facts as stated in his initial application of DATE evolved and partly changed during the proceedings before ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The respondent Government contested the applicant ’s version of the facts on all accounts , maintaining that there was no evidence demonstrating that they had occurred in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

In consequence , the facts of the case as rendered below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) are based on the applicant ’s account supplemented by various items of evidence in the ORG ’s possession .

In the application and further written pleadings , the applicant ’s lawyers stressed that restrictions on information regarding the entirety of PERSON detention necessarily meant that the case presented a range of complex , unusual and at times unique characteristics that the ORG should be aware of in its consideration . In their view , several factors heightened the already significant challenges related to uncovering and presenting evidence in the case .

First , the clandestine nature of the rendition operations coupled with a concerted cover - up intended to withhold or destroy any evidence relating to the rendition programme inherently limited the applicant ’s ability to produce evidence in his case .

Second , the lack of any meaningful investigation by the NORP authorities , in whose hands much of the necessary information rested , impeded access to evidence and information .

Third , they referred to what they called “ the unprecedented restrictions on communication ” between Mr PERSON , his counsel and the Court , which “ precluded the presentation of information or evidence directly from or in relation to the client ” . Only the applicant ’s GPE counsel with top - secret security clearance could meet with the applicant and all information obtained from him was presumptively classified . In consequence , counsel could not disclose to other members of the legal team or to the ORG any information obtained from the applicant or other classified sources without obtaining the declassification of that information by the GPE authorities .

According to the applicant ’s lawyers , “ PERSON [ was ] a man deprived of his voice , barred from communicating with the outside world or with this Court and from presenting evidence in support of his case ” . For that reason , his story was therefore to be told and the case was presented on his behalf by reference principally to publicly available documentation ( see also PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

As regards the events preceding the applicant ’s secret detention in GPE , i.e. his capture in GPE , GPE on DATE and his initial detention from that date to CARDINAL DATE , in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE the ORG held as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In the light of the above first - hand ORG documentary evidence and clear and convincing expert evidence , the ORG finds established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant , following his capture on DATE , was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE from an unknown date following his capture to DATE , that Mr PERSON was also held in the same facility from DATE to DATE and that they were both moved together to ‘ another ORG black ORG on DATE ( see also PERSON , cited above , § MONEY ) . ”

The experts , Senator PERSON and Mr GPE , heard by ORG at the factfinding hearing in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE and PERSON v. GPE identified the detention facility in GPE , GPE as the one referred to in ORG declassified documents under the codename “ Cat ’s Eye ” or “ GPE ” ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and GPE v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . In the DATE ORG that facility is referred to as “ ORG ” .

NORP The DATE ORG relates the events concerning the applicant ’s capture and initial detention as follows :

“ In DATE , NORP government authorities , working with the ORG , captured Qa’ida facilitator PERSON in a raid during which PERSON suffered bullet wounds . At that time , PERSON was assessed by ORG officers in FAC , the office within the ORG with specific responsibility for PERSON , to possess detailed knowledge of NORP terrorist attack plans . However , as is described in greater detail in the full ORG , this assessment significantly overstated PERSON role in GPE and the information he was likely to possess .

In DATE , anticipating its eventual custody of PERSON , the ORG began considering options for his transfer to ORG custody and detention under the ORG . The ORG rejected GPE military custody [ REDACTED ] in large part because of the lack of security and the fact that PERSON would have to be declared to ORG ( ICRC ) . The ORG ’s concerns about custody at FAC , GPE , included the general lack of secrecy and the ‘ possible loss of control to GPE military and/or FBI’ . ...

Over the course of DATE , the ORG settled on a detention site in Country [ REDACTED ] because of that country ’s [ REDACTED ] and the lack of GPE court jurisdiction . The only disadvantages identified by the ORG with detention in Country [ REDACTED ] were that it would not be a ‘ ORG - controlled facility’ and that ‘ diplomatic / policy ORG would be required . As a[t ] DATE , ORG document acknowledged , the proposal to render PERSON to Country [ name REDACTED ] had not yet been broached with that country ’s officials . ...

The decision to detain PERSON at a covert detention facility in Country [ REDACTED ] did not involve the input of ORG , ORG , the GPE ambassador , or the ORG chief of ORG . On DATE , an email from ORG Deputy ORG stated that ‘ [ w]e will have to acknowledge certain gaps in our planning / preparations , but this is the option the ORG will lead with for ORG . TIME , the president approved moving forward with the plan to transfer PERSON to Country [ REDACTED ] . During the same Presidential Daily Brief ( PDB ) session , Secretary of ORG PERSON suggested exploring the option of putting PERSON on a ship ; however , ORG records do not indicate any further input from the principals . DATE , the CIA Station in Country obtained the approval of Country ’s [ REDACTED ] officials for the ORG detention site . ... Shortly thereafter , PERSON was rendered from GPE to Country [ REDACTED ] where he was held at the first ORG detention site , referred to in this summary as ‘ DETENTION SITE GREEN’ . ”

The report cited a ORG cable dated DATE relating the applicant ’s physical conditions of detention as follows :

“ [ REDACTED ] a cable described PERSON cell as white with no natural lighting or windows , but with CARDINAL halogen lights pointed into the cell . An air conditioner was also in the room . A white curtain separated the interrogation room from the cell . The interrogation cell had CARDINAL padlocks . PERSON was also provided with CARDINAL of CARDINAL chairs that were rotated based on his level of cooperation ( CARDINAL described as more comfortable than the other ) . Security officers wore all black uniforms , including boots , gloves , balaclavas , and goggles to keep PERSON from identifying the officers , as well as to prevent PERSON ‘ from seeing the security guards as individuals who he may attempt to establish a relationship or dialogue with’ . The security officers communicated by hand signals when they were with PERSON and used hand - cuffs and leg shackles to maintain control . In addition , either loud rock music was played or noise generators were used to enhance PERSON ‘ sense of ORG . PERSON was typically kept naked and sleep deprived . ”

The report states that on DATE the ORG Headquarters informed the interrogation team at ORG that it had formal approval to apply the EITs , including waterboarding , against PERSON . After PERSON had been held in complete isolation for DATE , the most aggressive interrogation phase began “ at TIME ” . The report gives the following description of that particular interrogation session :

“ Security personnel entered the cell , shackled and hooded PERSON , and removed his towel ( PERSON was then naked ) . Without asking any questions , the interrogators placed a rolled towel around his neck as a collar , and backed him up into the cell wall ( an interrogator later acknowledged the collar was used to slam PERSON against a concrete wall ) . The interrogators then removed the hood , performed an attention grab , and had PERSON watch while a large confinement box was brought into the cell and laid on the floor . A cable states PERSON ‘ was unhooded and the large confinement box was carried into the interrogation room and paced [ sic ] on the floor so as to appear as a coffin’ . The interrogators then demanded detailed and verifiable information on terrorist operations planned against GPE , including the names , phone numbers , email addresses , weapon caches , and safe houses of anyone involved . ORG records describe PERSON as appearing apprehensive . Each time PERSON denied having additional information , the interrogators would perform a facial slap or face grab . At TIME , PERSON was waterboarded for the first time . Over a CARDINAL - and - a half - hour period , PERSON coughed , vomited , and had ‘ involuntary spasms of the torso and extremities’ during waterboarding . Detention site personnel noted that ‘ throughout the process [ PERSON ] was asked and given the opportunity to respond to questions about threats’ to GPE , but PERSON continued to maintain that he did not have any additional information to provide . ”

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the ORG interrogators subjected PERSON to EITs on a near FAC - per - DATE basis . The report relates the following facts :

“ The use of the ORG ’s enhanced interrogation techniques – including ‘ walling , attention grasps , slapping , facial hold , stress positions , cramped confinement , white noise and sleep deprivation’ – continued in ‘ varying combinations , TIME a day’ for DATE , through DATE . When PERSON was left alone during this period , he was placed in a stress position , left on the waterboard with a cloth over his face , or locked in CARDINAL of CARDINAL confinement boxes . According to the cables , PERSON was also subjected to the waterboard ‘ QUANTITY - CARDINAL times a day ... with multiple iterations of the watering cycle during each ORG .

The ‘ aggressive phase of interrogation’ continued until DATE . Over the course of DATE ‘ aggressive phase of interrogation’ , PERSON spent a total of TIME ( DATE , TIME ) in the large ( coffin size ) confinement box and TIME in a small confinement box , which had a width of QUANTITY , a depth of QUANTITY , and a height of QUANTITY . The ORG interrogators told PERSON that the only way he would leave the facility was in the coffin - shaped confinement box .

According to the DATE cables from FAC , PERSON frequently ‘ cried’ , ‘ ORG , ‘ pleaded’ , and ‘ whimpered’ , but continued to deny that he had any additional information on current threats to , or operatives in , GPE .

By DATE , DATE of the interrogation period , the interrogation team informed ORG that they had come to the ‘ collective preliminary assessment’ that it was unlikely PERSON ‘ had actionable new information about current threats to GPE . On DATE , the interrogation team stated that it was ‘ highly unlikely’ that PERSON possessed the information they were seeking . ...

[ REDACTED ] DETENTION SITE GREEN cables describe PERSON as ‘ compliant’ , informing ORG that when the interrogator ‘ raised his eyebrow , without instructions’ , PERSON ‘ slowly walked on his own to the water table and sat down’ . When the interrogator ‘ snapped his fingers twice’ , PERSON would lie flat on the waterboard . Despite the assessment of personnel at the detention site that PERSON was compliant , ORG stated that they continued to believe that PERSON was withholding threat information and instructed the ORG interrogators to continue using the ORG ’s enhanced interrogation techniques .

[ REDACTED ] At times PERSON was described as ‘ hysterical’ and ‘ distressed to the level that he was unable to effectively communicate’ . Waterboarding sessions ‘ resulted in immediate fluid intake and involuntary leg , chest and arm spasms’ and ‘ hysterical ORG . In CARDINAL waterboarding session , PERSON ‘ became completely unresponsive , with bubbles rising through his open , full ORG . According to ORG records , PERSON remained unresponsive until medical intervention , when he regained consciousness and expelled ‘ copious amounts of ORG . ”

According to the report , “ ORG records indicate that PERSON never provided the information for which the ORG ’s enhanced interrogation techniques were justified and approved ” . Furthermore , “ as compared to the period prior to DATE , the quantity and type of intelligence produced by PERSON remained largely unchanged during and after the DATE use of the ORG enhanced interrogation techniques ” .

The report also confirms that PERSON and PERSON were held at FAC until its closure in DATE and that they were then moved together to another ORG detention facility , ORG . The relevant part of the report reads as follows :

“ In DATE , when DETENTION SITE GREEN was closed , LOC and PERSON were rendered to DETENTION SITE BLUE . ”

As regards the events after DATE , in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ( § CARDINAL ) the ORG held :

“ CARDINAL . Assessing all the above facts and evidence as a whole , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :

( CARDINAL ) on DATE the applicant , together with Mr PERSON arrived in PERSON on board the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALMU ;

( CARDINAL ) from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE identified as having the codename ‘ GPE and located in Stare Kiejkuty ;

( CARDINAL ) during his detention in GPE under the ORG he was ‘ debriefed’ by the ORG interrogation team and subjected to the standard procedures and treatment routinely applied to High - Value Detainees in the ORG custody , as defined in the relevant ORG documents ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE to another ORG secret detention facility elsewhere on board the rendition aircraft ORG ”

The events that took place DATE and DATE at the ORG detention facility code - named “ Quartz ” and located in GPE correspond to the events that the DATE ORG relates as occurring at “ ORG ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ; see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , LAW ) .

The applicant submitted that on DATE he had been transferred from GPE to a ORG detention facility at FAC . In DATE , in anticipation of ORG ruling in PERSON v. PERSON granting ORG detainees the right to legal counsel and habeas corpus review of their detention in a GPE federal court ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he had again been secretly transferred , this time to a facility in GPE , where he had been detained incommunicado for DATE .

In that regard , he relied on a DATE report by ORG stating that “ according to CARDINAL former GPE intelligence officials ” PERSON had been held in “ a secret prison in GPE ” . Another press report indicated that his detention in GPE had followed his detention in GPE .

On the basis of their investigations , research and various material in the public domain , the experts heard by ORG at the fact - finding hearing reconstructed the chronology of the applicant ’s transfers and identified the countries of his secret detention in the period from DATE to CARDINAL - CARDINAL DATE .

In the light of the material in the ORG ’s possession the chronology of the applicant ’s detention can be described as follows .

In GPE ( PERSON ) the Court , in its findings as to the applicant ’s transfer out of GPE considered , among other things , the collation of data from multiple sources , including flight plan messages concerning the NCARDINALP flight circuit executed through GPE on DATE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . Those data showed that NCARDINALP had travelled the following routes :

Take - off Destination Date of flight

As noted above , the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s allegations as being unsupported by any evidence and , consequently , lacking any factual basis . They also challenged the credibility of the evidence relied on by the applicant and denied that GPE had any knowledge of , or complicity in , the operation of the ORG HVD Programme on its territory at the material time ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The Government ’s conclusions on the facts and evidence were as follows .

The Government contested the evidential value of the material produced by the applicant . They stressed that most of that material had originated in various public sources whose credibility had not been verifiable . The Government would not play down the significance of publicly available information about the ORG ’s ORG ; indeed , in the ORG case ( cited above ) similar material on public record had been taken into account by the ORG .

However , in contrast to the present case , that material had constituted merely a supplementary source for the ORG ’s findings . In ORG had relied first of all on the applicant ’s description of the circumstances , which had been very detailed and , secondly , on indirect evidence obtained during the international inquiries and the investigation in GPE . ORG had had at its disposal scientific evidence , such as a test of the applicant ’s hair follicles , geological records confirming the applicant ’s recollection or sketches of the layout of the prison in GPE that the applicant had drawn . Only in addition had the ORG relied on the material available in the public domain . In the present case , the applicant had built his case the other way round , starting from publicly available information and , in fact , also finishing with it as he had been unable to produce any other evidence .

As regards the applicant ’s reliance on the case of ORG v. ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the Government saw little , if any , connection with his alleged detention in GPE . The case had concerned a commercial dispute between CARDINAL aviation companies , where the plaintiff , ORG , had submitted an invoice to ORG demanding payment for unused flight time for DATE between DATE and DATE . It did not appear that the companies had exclusively carried out rendition flights . The aircraft mentioned in the case - file differed from those appearing in the present case . The events that had given rise to the litigation had occurred prior to the flights to GPE , before DATE . Even if the witnesses in the PERSON case had given some fragmentary testimony to the effect that the flights contracted by ORG through the companies at the material time ( from DATE to DATE ) and performed by the Gulfstream IV aircraft could be used sometimes for the purposes of the rendition programme , this had nothing to do with the flights to and from GPE allegedly used for the applicant ’s rendition .

The Government did not dispute the fact that during the relevant period , as well as earlier , there had been a number of ORG - linked aircraft landings in GPE at Palanga and GPE airports . The circumstances relating to those landings had been thoroughly analysed in the course of the pre - trial investigation and no links between the impugned aircraft and the ORG rendition programme had been established . In particular , all persons who had been present at the time of arrivals or departures of the planes , including the airports’ employees , officers of the ORG and the ORG had been questioned and all relevant documents had been obtained from the ORG . From the totality of that material the prosecutor had concluded that no detained persons had ever been brought into or taken from the territory of GPE . Furthermore , no link had been found between the flights in question and any detainees of the ORG in general and the Projects No . CARDINAL or No . CARDINAL in particular . The prosecuting authorities had established that despite the fact that on some occasions ORG and ORG inspections had not been carried out , it appeared from the documents provided by the ORG that in all instances the ORG officers had had access to the aircraft in accordance with ORG . It had also been established that the ORG officers , who had sought and obtained uninterrupted access to the airports’ sectors at which the ORG aircraft had landed , had acted in a lawful manner and had not abused their office or exceeded the limits of their authority .

As regards the flights NCARDINALWH of CARDINAL DATE and ORG indicated by the applicant as those on which he had been brought into and taken out of GPE , the prosecution having investigated in detail both flights had established beyond any reasonable doubt that no ORG detainee ( including the applicant ) had been transported on them . The same applied to any other ORG - linked flights landings during the period in question .

The evidence collected in the investigation had revealed the true purpose of the NCARDINALWH ’s and ORG ’s landings . In that connection , QUANTITY witnesses had been questioned and abundant documentary evidence had been obtained .

It had been established that the NCARDINALWH flight of CARDINAL DATE had arrived with , in the ORG ’s words , “ CARDINAL foreign citizens of CARDINAL ORG ” and CARDINAL crew members . Needless to say , the ORG added , the applicant had not been among them . All of them had gone through a State border control for passengers DATE and again TIME . Then the plane had left for GPE . The purpose of the landing had been a carriage of some specific cargo , which explained why the vehicle had been seen next to the plane and then leaving . The carriage of the cargo had been related to the activities of the ORG , and the nature of the activities explained why the ORG had asked to be provided with access to the plane .

Likewise , the ORG flight of DATE had brought cargo into GPE and had not been involved in the transportation of the ORG detainees .

Notwithstanding the fact that there was no data in the pre - trial investigation as to the purpose of the cargo , on the basis of the whole body of material collected it might be concluded that “ some specific cargo ” could have been communications equipment necessary for the technical maintenance of the implementation of a joint project of the ORG and the partners . Due to the particular importance of certain cargo , the ORG would request direct access to planes . For this purpose , as confirmed by witnesses M , O and N , classified letters used to be written to the airport and the ORG .

As regards the flight NCARDINALWH on DATE it might be concluded that CARDINAL persons , GPE citizens , had arrived at Palanga airport . As regards the cargo on the flight LOC DATE , it might be concluded that some equipment could have been carried on the flight at issue . It had been packed in boxes of not QUANTITY in length , which , as V confirmed , had been carried by CARDINAL persons . There was a record in the investigation file showing that the cargo could have been exported by the flight on DATE , as confirmed by officer O. According to the testimony of the witnesses , it might be concluded that the vehicles of partners used to enter and leave the airports escorted by the ORG officers . The officers used to escort them to the plane ; officer V had stated that he had been QUANTITY away from the plane .

The investigation file included the ORG ’s requests submitted in respect of both flights ; both of them had been duly reasoned and indicated the purpose of the flights , which constituted a ORG secret . No customs control had been performed in either case , not because of the ORG ’s requests but due to legal regulations under which it had not been obligatory and could be performed on an occasional basis .

The ORG had asked the administration of the airport in both instances to allow their officials to access the airport in order to carry consignments and parcels from the airport to their final destination and nothing else . The ORG had never asked for a customs or State border control not to be carried out . It had not interfered in any way with the functions of ORG . According to testimonies of many ORG officials , these CARDINAL flights had not been exceptional and they were not the only ones where the ORG had asked for permission to have access to certain aircraft . In general , over DATE there had been an enormous number of flights of various ORG with military , official and non - official delegations . According to the testimony of the director of ORG , ORG had mostly been used for those landings since it received less flights than FAC .

All the ORG officials involved in the reception and transport of the cargo had been questioned by the prosecutors in that connection and had described in detail what the cargo looked like , where it had been transported , whether anyone else had been able to see it and why special supervision of the ORG had been needed . All of them had testified that it had been only boxes which had been unloaded first from the aircraft and then other boxes and some parcels which had been loaded into the aircraft . There had been many of them , all of the same size , definitely too small to place any person inside . The loading itself had been carried out openly and could be seen by the employees of the airport . The boxes brought by the aircraft had been carried by the ORG officials to ORG , but not to Project No . CARDINAL or Project No . CARDINAL .

At the public hearing , answering the judges’ questions as to the nature of the cargo , the ORG further explained that the cargo had contained “ special equipment that had been meant for a special investigation department DATE and that the purpose had been “ to equip this department and its personnel ” .

The Government maintained that the pre - trial investigation had established conclusively that no secret prison run by the ORG had existed in GPE .

In particular , the applicant ’s allegation that a ORG secret detention facility had operated on the premises of ORG . CARDINAL and that ORG . CARDINAL had been designated for that purpose but not used as such had lacked any factual basis .

It was true that ORG . CARDINAL , which had been carried out in DATE by the ORG and the ORG and ORG , which had been implemented by the same partners in DATE , had involved the reconstruction and fitting - out of certain LOC . However , evidence gathered by the prosecutor had conclusively excluded the possibility of either of these LOC having been used as a prison for ORG detainees .

In the course of the pre - trial investigation numerous persons had been questioned – not only those who had participated directly in the construction works on ORG . CARDINAL , but also those responsible for its subsequent use .

Having analysed all relevant evidence , the prosecutor – contrary to the statement made by the CNSD that “ conditions [ had been ] created for holding detainees ” – had concluded that this building had been used exclusively by the ORG officers and that it had been absolutely unsuitable for holding detainees due to its geographical location ( the city centre ) and the facilities on the LOC .

In that regard , the ORG also underlined that the CNSD Findings had to be seen in the light of its competence and the nature of parliamentary inquiries performed by it . According to ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE , “ the LAW [ was ] neither an institution of pre - trial investigation , nor a prosecutor ’s office , nor the court ” and therefore its conclusions were not “ binding on institutions of pre - trial investigation , the prosecutor ’s office or the court ” ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The LOC referred to as ORG . CARDINAL were situated in an auxiliary building in the yard next to the main building at FAC in GPE where the LOC of the ORG had been located at the material time . In DATE the auxiliary building had been in an emergency condition , and repair works had been needed . As all repair works had been documented , the documentation had been received and analysed by the prosecutor . The builders had confirmed that no wishes had been expressed by the ORG officers that the work be related to the detention of any persons .

CARDINAL of the witnesses , who , at the relevant time , had been in charge of the administration of both Projects No . CARDINAL and No . CARDINAL , had described the purpose of the LOC in the building referred to as ORG . CARDINAL at PERSON for which they had been fitted out , though he had testified that the premises had never been used since DATE for that particular purpose . This purpose had been closely related with the structure and functions performed by the ORG , which in themselves constituted a ORG secret and therefore could not be declassified . Those statements had been corroborated by many other lower ORG officials and technical workers , who had testified that the LOC had never been used for any other purposes that were not related to the needs of the ORG .

As regards Project No . CARDINAL , ORG , based on witness testimony , had established that no special facilities suitable for holding detainees had ever been installed inside the building . In particular , there had been no premises fitted with bars or otherwise specifically adapted for detention purposes . Also , it had been established that access had been permanently controlled and the persons in charge of the building ’s security had confirmed that no detainees had ever been present there . Thus , having regard to all the relevant evidence , the prosecution , contrary to the CNSD ’s findings that the ORG officers had not always had the possibility of monitoring the arrival and departure of persons at ORG . CARDINAL , concluded that access to Project No . CARDINAL had been under permanent control , thus ruling out the possibility of bringing detainees into the building .

Project No . CARDINAL was located in GPE . The building had been acquired for the needs of the ORG in accordance with the requirements of national law and the repair work on the LOC had started in DATE . The work had been finished in DATE . All the ORG officials involved in this project ( Director General , Deputy Director General and other ORG officials of lower rank ) , had been questioned by the prosecutors . They had testified that the purpose of the LOC in question could not have – and in fact had not had – anything to do with the detention of any persons . All witnesses had spoken of classrooms , living and meeting rooms , as well as sports rooms . The ORG officials of lower rank had been in charge of the repair work on the LOC and the security of the building after its completion . Having been questioned several times , they had confirmed that no facilities suitable for holding detainees had ever been fitted in the building . The building had never been left without supervision of the ORG officials , who had testified that there had been no secret or closed zones inside it which would not be accessible to them . Also , in the ORG ’s view , the geographical location of the building had made it totally unsuitable for detention as it was situated in the village of ORG and surrounded by residential houses .

According to the Director General of the ORG at the relevant time , the building had been used at DATE to a very limited extent – several meetings took place there . As the ORG officials in charge of the building ’s security had testified , it had been used randomly and only for short - term meetings in which the ORG officials and their guests had participated . The visitors had been driven there exclusively by the authorised ORG officials . Thus , contrary to the findings of the CNSD , it had not been possible for any other persons save the ORG officials to use the building at their discretion . In DATE the surveillance of the building had been taken over by the ORG ’s section . At that time it had temporarily not been used at all but had remained open to the ORG employees . Since DATE the SSD training centre had occupied the building .

All documents related to the Projects No . CARDINAL and No . CARDINAL had been collected from the ORG , including material containing ORG secrets . Part of those documents , for instance the records of the on - site inspection of Projects No . CARDINAL and No . CARDINAL together with annexes comprising the photos of the buildings , LOC and their surroundings , had been declassified and submitted to ORG . The materials clearly showed that no prison could have been hosted on those LOC .

In sum , the prosecutor had found that both LOC had , at the relevant time , served other purposes , which had in no way been related to the holding or confinement of persons , although those purposes could not be declassified for the simple reason that the ORG ’s partner would have to consent to such disclosure .

At the public hearing , the ORG reiterated the above statements . They added that after analysing all the relevant circumstances it had been established that the flight NCARDINALWH on DATE and the flight GPE on DATE had been used for transporting a specialpurpose cargo and that cargo could not contain the applicant or any other person . It had been the connection equipment for the ORG providing them and their partners with technical services in order to implement their joint project . That explained why they had asked for direct access to the aircraft .

As regards the alleged locations of the ORG prison , ORG . CARDINAL had been used for operational activities , ORG . CARDINAL had been used for intelligence activities . The facilities of Project No . CARDINAL had never been used for their original purpose and they had later been reconverted and used as the ORG ’s training centre .

Replying to the judges’ questions as to why the DATE SSD Resolution and DATE SSD Action Plan referring to the purpose of the premises to be selected had spoken of the “ extradition of secret intelligence collaborators ” , the ORG explained that this was due to the terminology used at that time DATE at present that term would correspond to “ exfiltration ” or “ extraction ” , meaning the relocation of special agents or secret agents into their normal life or natural environment .

The added that , as regards the purposes served by the facilities , ORG . CARDINAL had been meant for special officers and their “ extraction ” , while ORG . CARDINAL had been the support centre for intelligence .

The Government argued that there had been no credible evidence confirming the applicant ’s presence on the territory of GPE . The present case was built on some leaked information which had appeared in media in DATE and which referred to the alleged existence of ORG secret detention facilities in GPE . That information had never been confirmed officially , either directly or indirectly .

Moreover , the applicant ’s lawyers had referred to unknown “ public sources ” indicating that the applicant had been moved from GPE to GPE in DATE , that the NORP prison site had been closed in DATE and that its occupants had been transferred to GPE or other countries . In essence , the entire case rested on the routes of certain flights and their alleged links with the ORG . The applicant had described in detail the routes of NCARDINALWH on DATE and GPE on DATE , highlighting the stopovers of the first aircraft in GPE and the second one in GPE . He also referred to some invoices and contracts regarding those flights which , in his view , indicated their links with the ORG and the extraordinary rendition programme . Not a single direct or indirect piece of evidence had ever been produced that would reveal the slightest connection between the applicant and the flights in question .

The Government said that in this regard they would appeal to pure common sense – the routes of the flights demonstrated nothing more than the fact that the aircraft had landed for a short while in GPE . Even if their links with the ORG were confirmed , this did not prove by itself GPE ’s involvement in the ORG , still less the applicant ’s secret detention on its territory .

The Government regretted the suffering sustained by the persons , including the applicant , detained under that programme . However , they could not but emphasise that while this might have occurred somewhere in LOC , it had not happened in GPE .

In the ORG ’s submission , not a single high - level ORG politician or official had in any way admitted to knowing of or agreeing to the involvement of GPE in the ORG extraordinary rendition programme . It was true that the ORG officials had given some consideration to the possibility of having requests for assistance from the GPE authorities in the context of the war on terror but this possibility had proved to be purely theoretical because there had been no requests for the detention of any individuals .

In that regard , the Government referred to the statements of the ORG officials and the ORG officers who had been questioned in the pre - trial investigation . They also relied on the letter of CARDINAL DATE written by PERSON , the former President of GPE , to the CNSD in which he had stated that he had never been informed of any ORG prisons in the country ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Nor had any other former President of the Republic had had any such knowledge . In the investigation the Heads of State had testified that they had not known about any transfer of any detainees and had not given their consent to the transportation of any persons held by the ORG .

The Government said that they agreed with the ORG ’s conclusions in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE that without the knowledge of the ORG authorities and their assistance , the ORG could not have been executed , and that the running of the ORG prisons would have been impossible in the countries concerned . However , as stated above , GPE had not had any knowledge of such activities on its territory . The fact that in DATE , as the applicant argued , there had been generalised knowledge of the ORG owing to findings of international inquiries and public reports disclosing the nature of the ORG secret scheme , was irrelevant since GPE had not been included in any of the inquiries and there had been no ORG prison in the country .

The applicant maintained that the whole body of evidence from numerous sources , such as the international inquiries , recent research into the ORG rendition and secret detention operations , abundant aviation data confirming the ORG planes landings in GPE , declassified ORG documents , the DATE ORG and evidence from the experts heard by the ORG conclusively confirmed his allegations .

In his submission , it was established beyond reasonable doubt that a ORG secret detention facility – referred to as “ Detention Site Violet ” in the DATE ORG – had operated in GPE in DATE and that he had been detained at that facility from CARDINAL or DATE to DATE .

NORP The applicant said that the Government ’s objection to his reliance on public documents , reports and other material as evidence in this case was unfounded . ORG had on a number of occasions stated that it would freely evaluate all the evidence , and might draw “ such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions ” . The ORG routinely relied on public source evidence ; this was demonstrated , for instance , in GPE where the ORG had taken into account publicly available information of a similar nature and evidence from a range of other sources , including reports from ORG , ORG and the ICRC . It had also cited numerous media reports .

Consequently , the ORG ’s objections to the nature of the evidence in the case was not based on the ORG ’s established approach to evidence . The ORG would take into account all available sources of evidence and determine whether , in the circumstances of cases such as this , taken together they were sufficient to give rise to “ strong and concordant inferences ” of ORG responsibility . In the applicant ’s view , the range of evidence submitted in his case considered as a whole more than satisfied the relevant test .

The applicant considered that the ORG ’s suggestion that the flights referenced in his submissions as being ORG rendition flights , even if chartered by the ORG , could have had other purposes or simply stopped at some places for technical reasons , lacked any support in the facts .

While apparently plausible , this assertion had no merit in the context of the assembled data presented as evidence to the ORG . A large number of international and regional bodies , human rights organisations and respected and credible media outlets , which had acknowledged the evidence disclosing that rendition flights flew into and out of GPE , disagreed . For example , on DATE ORG , following its DATE visit to GPE , had issued a resolution noting “ new evidence provided by the ORG data showing that plane PERSON , alleged to have transported PERSON , [ had ] stop[ped ] in GPE on DATE on its way to GPE and GPE ” . It had also noted that analysis of the ORG data had revealed new information through flight plans connecting GPE to GPE , via a plane switch in GPE , GPE , on DATE , and GPE to GPE , via GPE , GPE , on DATE . This was mirrored in the findings and reports of other international organisations .

In the light of the accumulated material before the ORG it was evident that the planes passing through GPE in DATE had been chartered by ORG in the context and for the purpose of the rendition programme . A clear line of evidence connected these flights to GPE .

To begin with , all the flights involved in rendition into and out of GPE had been chartered by a GPE company , ORG on behalf of ORG . This prime contract originated in DATE with another GPE company , ORG and ORG ( ORG ) , and was then inherited by ORG through its purchase of ORG in DATE . ORG initial contract with ORG had given rise to a succession of subcontracts , including the agreement with ORG of DATE and a similar agreement between ORG as authorised agent for ORG and plane operator ORG on DATE .

These companies , along with various other plane operators including ORG ( operating NCARDINALWH ) and ORG ( operating GPE and GPE ) , had thereby established a method and pattern of doing business which had lasted DATE .

The DATE flights of GPE and ORG , travelling from the GPE to GPE via GPE , had been arranged under ORG ’s subcontract with ORG trading as ORG . These flights corresponded to the dates on which information indicated that the applicant had been transferred from GPE to GPE in DATE . The DATE flights of GPE and GPE had also been arranged under ORG ’s successor subcontract with ORG .

Flights organised and billed by ORG and ORG had been the subject of civil litigation in GPE , concluding in DATE , between PERSON and ORG . During this litigation , both parties had made clear that the flights had been part of the rendition programme and that the contractual arrangements under which these flights were provided had been set up to facilitate that programme .

Furthermore , all the flights connecting with GPE in DATE , as well as flight NCARDINALWH in DATE , exhibited a common pattern of behaviour designed for the sole purpose of disguising the true flight routes , the so - called “ dummy ” flight planning .

Taking into account , on a cumulative basis , all the available evidence such as the contracts and invoices , the patterns of behaviour , the statements made in the litigation referred to above , the timing of the flights , and the overall context within which rendition flights had been shown to take place , there was a compelling basis on which to conclude that the sole purpose of the flights of NCARDINALWH , ORG , GPE and GPE had been to interconnect the ORG ’s various secret prison locations . In addition , these interconnections had been made at times when , according to authoritative news reports , prisoner transfers had been made between the respective countries .

Lastly , even if CARDINAL were to leave aside the entire significance of the above evidence , in the applicant ’s view a number of questions would remain . For instance , why , if these had been entirely innocent or “ technical ” stopovers had the ORG been prevented from inspecting the planes ? Why had the planes been cordoned off by the ORG ? Why had a vehicle been seen leaving one of the planes , and the airport , if this had merely been a “ technical ” stop ?

In the applicant ’s submission , the evidence before the ORG established beyond reasonable doubt , based on strong and concordant inferences of fact , that GPE had housed a ORG secret black - site , a site at which the applicant had been detained DATE and DATE . The DATE ORG had referred to a detention site codenamed “ PERSON ” , which multiple independent investigators had consistently and unequivocally identified as referring to GPE , as confirmed by the experts at the fact - finding hearing .

The DATE ORG stated that ORG had specifically been developed to ensure that multiple detainees could be interrogated simultaneously , that the site had begun operating as a detention centre in DATE and that it had been closed down in DATE due to the lack of medical care for ailing detainees . The report ’s categorical findings corresponded to and confirmed the credibility of a host of other evidence available at a much earlier stage . This included flight data and contracts , information collected by ORG own ORG , the NORP prosecutor ’s own investigation file , the statements and findings of multiple additional inquiries at the regional and international level and the work of nongovernmental organisations , journalists and investigators .

At the fact - finding hearing ORG had heard evidence from the experts of the highest calibre who , having investigated and analysed the ORG HVD Programme for DATE , had confirmed that , consistent with a cyclical pattern of sudden site closures , GPE had undoubtedly set up a secret detention site in DATE following the closure of the site in GPE .

GPE had become , as Mr GPE had described it , the hub for detention of high - value detainees at that point . It had been the experts’ firm and consistent professional assessments as investigators , that the evidence had showed that PERSON had been among those detained in GPE . Senator PERSON had noted that if one had taken the trouble to reconstruct the story , one could only come to that conclusion . Mr GPE ’s work had definitively associated PERSON with GPE and Mr Black had found that the detention of PERSON in GPE had been beyond reasonable doubt .

CARDINAL aspect of the evidence before the Court , considered in detail by the experts , included evidence from multiple sources that showed the landing of rendition flights in GPE on CARDINAL and DATE , having followed a circuitous route , from GPE via GPE , where the applicant was known to have been detained at the relevant time . Likewise it showed that on DATE another rendition flight departed from GPE , en route to GPE , where again it was known that the applicant had been detained in DATE . False flight plans had been filed for the NORP leg of these journeys , showing alternative destinations in accordance with standard modus operandi for rendition flights .

The Government had argued that there was no evidence that these had been rendition flights . Yet the pattern these flights displayed , the paths they had taken , and the contracts and invoices , combined with other corresponding details , had led to them being consistently identified by investigators , parliamentary and other inquiries , and by the experts of the ORG , unequivocally as flights whose sole purpose had been extraordinary rendition . If any doubt remained about whether these had been rendition flights , it had been dispelled in the above - mentioned civil litigation between sub - contractors in GPE courts where the flight operators had themselves stated , in their pleadings , in clear and explicit terms that this contract had been for rendition flights carried out for ORG .

The dates and routes of these rendition flights and the periods of operation of Detention Site Violet corresponded with the conclusive evidence of the applicant ’s location prior to and after GPE . As the Court noted in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , the applicant , after being captured in GPE , had been transferred to secret ORG detention in GPE , from there to GPE , and then on to a secret ORG site in LOC . Expert testimony had confirmed earlier reports that in DATE he had been moved out of LOC in anticipation of the NORP ORG ruling granting access to lawyers and habeas corpus review DATE and he had been transferred to GPE . As the experts had explained , the NORP site had closed in DATE , prompting the opening of the next site in the cycle , GPE , precisely when rendition flights had flown the route from GPE to GPE . In DATE , the NORP site itself had closed , prompting the transfer of the applicant , like all of the remaining ORG detainees , to GPE . It was from GPE that he had ultimately been transferred back to LOC in DATE .

Referring to the Government ’s explanations as to the “ special cargo ” and the purposes served by ORG . CARDINAL given at the public hearing , the applicant said these facts were entirely consistent with his statements and did not really provide any information that would counter his case . In particular , the transportation of the “ cargo ” was fully consistent with the expert testimony given by PERSON in GPE ( PERSON ) , stating that the high - value detainees had been treated as human cargo and that when they had been brought into a country they had not been registered – even if the passengers on the plane had been registered . Likewise , the Government ’s claim that ORG . CARDINAL had been for a special intelligence purpose was entirely consistent with the purpose of ORG and the applicant ’s submissions in that respect .

In conclusion , the applicant contended that multiple strands of corroborating evidence considered together , supportive of the first DATE media accounts citing ORG insiders , led to the irresistible conclusion that , as confirmed by the experts , GPE had hosted ORG . It had been set up by the NORP authorities and had been operated with their assistance by the ORG and the applicant had been detained at that site CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

The applicant maintained that multiple sources , including the DATE ORG , the CNSD Findings and press reports , mentioned high - level members of the ORG and intelligence agencies as having approved the establishment of the ORG sites . The DATE ORG made it clear that MONEY had been covertly transferred to show appreciation for the country ’s support for the ORG .

Furthermore , the applicant emphasised , for ORG responsibility to be engaged under the Convention it was not necessary for the highest level official of a ORG to have known and approved the setting up of the ORG secret “ black site ” in the country . It was sufficient for the relevant officials within the ORG to have approved and to have been responsible . In the applicant ’s view , there was compelling evidence that ORG had actively undertaken to facilitate and make possible his rendition to , and secret detention in , GPE .

The applicant reiterated that there had been no plausible room for doubt as to GPE ’s knowledge of the nature of the secret detention system in DATE and DATE . This had been clear from the vast publicly available information , including extensive media coverage which had reverberated around the globe , including in GPE , detailing the secret detention programme , specifically identifying NORP “ black sites ” , the nature of the enhanced interrogation techniques , and identifying PERSON by name as one the missing “ ghost prisoners ” . ORG was already underway when the applicant had been detained in GPE . To suggest innocent ignorance on the part of the authorities as to what might have been going on in the secret site that they set up for the ORG by DATE simply beggared belief .

In addition , evidence showed that high - level officials had had specific and direct knowledge . For example , the former President had publicly admitted having been asked by the head of intelligence whether he would be willing to bring accused terrorists into the country unofficially . The head of intelligence in response had noted that he had enquired as to the President ’s position precisely on the basis that he had known what had been going on in the world .

In another example , also from DATE , while the applicant was still detained in GPE , ORG attended a ORG meeting with PERSON ; PERSON testimony set out in GPE ( PERSON ) made it clear that all member States had known about the enhanced interrogation techniques . That had been clear from the records of the meeting .

As experts had testified , while not everyone would have known , just as in all other host countries , some certainly had known and had approved . It was beyond reasonable doubt that by DATE GPE had known of the real risk of violations on its territory and evidence demonstrated that the authorities had taken no measures to prevent , to monitor or even to enquire . The parliamentary inquiry concluded that it had been evident that the ORG had not sought to control the ORG ’s activities in the country and the premises placed at their disposal . It had not monitored or recorded cargoes brought in and out of the country , and it had not controlled the ORG ’s arrival and departure . This lack of oversight was confirmed by the prosecution file . The NORP authorities had not only failed to exercise due diligence to prevent violations but they had actively intervened to support and enable them . As the evidence showed , again including evidence from the prosecution file , the NORP officials had agreed to , purchased and helped to equip the ORG ’s secret sites . The NORP officials had provided vital logistics and support for the site , keeping local inquiries at bay . The NORP authorities had intervened to ensure that normal oversight of ORG flights had been lifted by the use of classified letters that had ensured that neither planes , nor passengers , nor cargo had been monitored or inspected . This had been true specifically of the rendition flights identified by the experts as bringing the ORG detainees into the country and taking them out again .

Referring to the knowledge of the GPE authorities’ practices in respect of suspected terrorists attributable to any ORG to the Convention at the material time , AI / ICJ pointed to , among other things , the following facts that had been a matter of public knowledge .

They stressed at the outset that already on DATE , in an interview , the GPE Vice President PERSON had said that , in response to the attacks of DATE , the GPE intelligence agencies would operate on “ the dark side ” , and had agreed that GPE restrictions on working with “ those who [ had ] violated human rights ” would need to be lifted .

AI warned in DATE that the GPE might exploit its existing rendition policy in the context of what it was calling the “ war on terror ” to avoid human rights protections . From DATE it became clear that ORG nationals outside the GPE suspected of involvement in international terrorism were at a real risk of secret transfer and arbitrary detention by GPE forces .

In that regard , AI / ICJ submitted that from DATE to DATE the GPE had transferred CARDINAL foreign nationals to FAC in LOC , GPE , with reports from the outset of ill - treatment during transfers , holding them without charge or trial or access to the courts , lawyers or relatives . By DATE , there were CARDINAL men held there .

Cases of arbitrary detention and secret transfer continued to emerge during DATE . In DATE , alongside the case of PERSON , arrested in GPE and whose whereabouts after transfer to GPE custody remained unknown AI reported that “ the GPE authorities had transferred CARDINAL of people to countries where they [ might ] be subjected to interrogation tactics -including torture [ ... ] . In some cases , it [ was ] alleged that GPE intelligence agents [ had ] remained closely involved in the interrogation ” .

Also , in DATE , ORG reported on a secret ORG facility at GPE , GPE , and the ORG ’s use of “ stress and duress ” techniques , including sleep deprivation , stress positions and hooding , and the use of renditions by the ORG . Thus , as early as DATE , any ORG was or should have been aware that there was substantial credible information in the public domain that the GPE was engaging in practices of enforced disappearance , arbitrary detention , secret detainee transfers , and torture or other ill - treatment .

In DATE and DATE information continued to emerge . In DATE , for example , ORG reported that the ORG had been involved in the arrest in GPE of CARDINAL men and their rendition out of that country to an undisclosed location . In DATE , ORG reported that NORP national ORG , also known as NORP , was being interrogated in GPE custody in incommunicado detention at an undisclosed location after his arrest in GPE .

In DATE , the ICRC issued a press release stating that “ [ PERSON and FAC , the ICRC [ was ] increasingly concerned about the fate of an unknown number of people captured as part of the socalled global war on terror and held in undisclosed locations ” . Furthermore , a DATE confidential report of the ICRC on Coalition abuses in GPE , leaked in DATE and published in the media at that time , found that detainees labelled by the GPE as “ high - value ” were at particular risk of torture and other ill - treatment and that “ high value detainees ” had been held for DATE in a facility at FAC in conditions that violated international law .

In DATE , AI publicly denounced as torture the interrogation technique known as “ waterboarding ” reportedly used against PERSON , a “ high - value detainee ” who had by then been held in secret GPE detention for DATE following his arrest in GPE in DATE .

NORP In DATE , ORG published a leaked DATE memorandum written in ORG . The memo advised , inter alia , that presidential powers or the doctrines of necessity or self - defence could override the criminal liability for torture under GPE law , and that a “ significant range of acts ” would not be punishable as they did not amount to torture . Another government memorandum leaked in DATE asserted that not applying LAW to “ captured terrorists and their sponsors ” would reduce the threat of domestic prosecution of GPE interrogators for war crimes .

In DATE , a DATE memorandum signed by the GPE Secretary of ORG was declassified . It had authorized “ counterresistance ” techniques for use at ORG , including stress positions , sleep deprivation , sensory deprivation , stripping , hooding , exploitation of phobias , and prolonged isolation . A DATE ORG report on “ detainee interrogations in the global war on terrorism ” , declassified and published in DATE after an earlier draft of it was leaked , recommended the use of various techniques , including environmental manipulation , threat of rendition , isolation , sleep deprivation , removal of clothing , exploitation of phobias , prolonged standing , and hooding .

NORP In DATE , AI published a CARDINAL-page report on GPE human rights violations in the “ war on terror ” , including case details of secret transfers of detainees , the alleged existence of secret GPE detention facilities , and torture and other ill - treatment . The numerous rendition cases listed included detailed allegations made by PERSON .

In addition , in its DATE reports covering DATE , ORG made multiple references to human rights violations in the context of GPE counterterrorism operations , not only in the entries on the GPE , but also in a number of other country entries . Paper copies of these reports were widely distributed , including to media and governments . For example , copies of the reports were mailed at the time of their publication directly to the President , the Prime Minister , the Minister of the ORG and the Minister of ORG in GPE , GPE .

NORP In the AI / ICJ ’s submission , by DATE it was beyond reasonable doubt that the GPE was engaging in human rights violations against detainees , including holding individuals in secret custody at undisclosed locations , and that detainees labelled “ high - value ” were at particular risk as the GPE pursued intelligence on ORG and associated groups .

Consequently , by DATE , any ORG agreeing to host a ORG “ black site ” on its territory would or should have known that such a site would be part of a programme that involved unlawful transfer , enforced disappearance , and torture or other ill- treatment . Further , any ORG would or should have known that any GPE assurances that a detainee previously subjected to the GPE programme would be treated in a manner consistent with international law , in the case of further transfer , lacked credibility . Any ORG would or should have known that even if not transferred to further undisclosed detention , the alternative for a “ highvalue ” detainee would be indefinite arbitrary detention without charge or committal for trial by military commission with the power to hand down death sentences .

The HFHR focused on their experience regarding GPE ’s involvement in the ORG extraordinary rendition programme . They produced a number of documents , including flight data , concerning CARDINAL landings of the ORG - rendition aircraft in GPE , CARDINAL of which had occurred at FAC DATE ( the date of the applicant ’s rendition to GPE ) and CARDINAL DATE ( the date of the applicant ’s rendition from GPE ) and CARDINAL landing of a plane from GPE in GPE en route to ORG that occurred on DATE .

The parties expressed opposing views on the standard and burden of proof to be applied in the present case .

The Government reiterated that there was no evidence that the facts complained of had taken place in GPE . In their view , the applicant ’s allegations could not be considered sufficiently convincing or established beyond reasonable doubt , as required by the ORG ’s case - law .

In that regard , the Government referred to the standard of proof applied by ORG in GPE ( cited above ) , emphasising that the present case was substantially different in several aspects . In the first place , in the PERSON case the applicant himself had lodged the case and presented his statements ; his account had been supported by a large amount of indirect evidence obtained during the international inquiries and the investigation by the NORP authorities . As the ORG held , Mr ORG case had been “ a case of documented rendition ” . Secondly , there had been other relevant elements corroborating the applicant ’s story . Thirdly , the circumstances described by the applicant had been verified and confirmed by other international investigations concerning the applicant , to mention only the PERSON and PERSON . Lastly , the ORG had before it a written statement made by CARDINAL of the ORG ’s top officials confirming the facts established in the course of the investigations and the applicant ’s consistent and coherent description of events . All this material taken together satisfied the ORG that there had been prima facie evidence in favour of the applicant ’s version of events , and , consequently , it found the applicant ’s allegations sufficiently convincing and established beyond reasonable doubt .

In contrast , Mr PERSON had failed to produce such evidence and to make a credible claim either before the domestic authorities or before the Court . In view of the foregoing , the Government were confident that the burden of proof should not be shifted to them .

The Government further stressed that the applicant ’s allegations concerning rendition to and from GPE , and his secret detention and illtreatment in ORG secret facilities in GPE had been rejected in their entirety as unfounded following the pre - trial investigation carried out by ORG .

Those proceedings followed the ORG inquiry . While it was true that the Seimas had come to conclusions that had left some doubt as to whether any ORG prisoners had been transported to and from the country and whether a ORG secret prison had operated on the premises of ORG . CARDINAL and Project No . CARDINAL , all such doubts had been dispelled in the criminal investigation .

In that context , the ORG also drew the ORG ’s attention to the limited competence of the Seimas and the nature of its inquiry as defined in ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE , holding that “ the LAW [ was ] neither an institution of pre - trial investigation under LAW , nor the prosecutor ’s office , nor the court ” and that “ the conclusions of the Seimas ... investigation ... may not be construed as legal qualification of the actions that [ it had ] investigated ... and of other circumstances ... elucidated by it ” . Consequently , the ORG findings had not been binding and remained subject to the verification in the prosecutor ’s investigation .

The Government attached particular importance to the prosecutor ’s conclusion that in the course of the pre - trial investigation no evidence concerning unlawful rendition by the ORG of any persons , including the applicant , to or from GPE had been obtained . That decision had been based on a wide range of evidence , including classified sources , conclusively refuting the applicant ’s version of the events . Those findings , made as they were on a solid evidential basis could not , therefore , be undermined by the mere flight data or other information available in the public domain .

In conclusion , the ORG asked the ORG to hold that there was no prima facie evidence in support of the applicant ’s version of events and that , accordingly , the burden of proof could not be shifted to them .

The applicant submitted that in his case against GPE , the ORG had acknowledged the undeniable evidential challenges that arose in a case of this nature , and how the facts of the case , and the nature of the allegations , conditioned the ORG ’s approach to evidence and proof .

As regards the “ beyond reasonable doubt ” standard , to which the Government referred , the ORG had long been clear that this did not have the meaning commonly associated with that term in criminal law and domestic systems . Proof might flow from the existence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences of presumptions of fact . The ORG must adopt an approach consistent with its purpose as a ORG . Where the events in issue lay wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the domestic authorities , strong presumptions of fact might arise . When prima facie evidence was presented , the burden of proof shifted to the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation .

In the applicant ’s view , the evidence in his case more than met the relevant standard of prima facie evidence and created , at a minimum , strong and concordant inferences of fact as to his secret detention on NORP soil . The ORG had failed to provide any satisfactory explanation in the face of overwhelming evidence that they had established a “ black site ” on their territory . Instead , they had engaged in a policy of denial and obfuscation , drawing categorical conclusions that there could not possibly have been detainees on NORP soil . These conclusions were plainly at odds with the evidence before the ORG . As the ORG in the NORP case had noted , given the nature of the case , the fact that there was no document identifying PERSON by name as a detainee on a specific flight or in a specific secret prison site was not surprising and could not determine the outcome in this case . As the evidence plainly showed and as all the CARDINAL experts had concluded , PERSON had been transferred to the NORP “ black site ” on the relevant dates .

The ORG is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and has consistently recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact , where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALXIII ( extracts ) ; GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . DATE and CARDINAL others , § CARDINAL , DATE ; and ORG , cited above , § CARDINAL ; GPE v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

In assessing evidence , the ORG has adopted the standard of proof “ beyond reasonable doubt ” . However , it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems which use that standard . Its role is not to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability but on the responsibility of ORG under the Convention . The specificity of its task under LAW to ensure the observance by GPE of their engagement to secure the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention – conditions its approach to the issues of evidence and proof . In the proceedings before the ORG , there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or pre - determined formulae for its assessment . It adopts the conclusions that are , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions .

According to the ORG ’s established case - law , proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . Moreover , the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and , in this connection , the distribution of the burden of proof , are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts , the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake . ORG is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a ORG has violated fundamental rights ( see , among other examples , GPE v. GPE , DATE , § CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ; PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ; ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; and ORG , cited above , § CARDINAL ; GPE v. GPE ( I ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ; PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

While it is for the applicant to make a prima facie case and adduce appropriate evidence , if the respondent Government in their response to his allegations fail to disclose crucial documents to enable the ORG to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred , strong inferences can be drawn ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , § CARDINAL , ECHR DATE , with further references ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . ORG , LAW , DATE ; ORG and Others , cited above , § CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

Furthermore , the Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio . According to the ORG ’s case - law under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention , where the events in issue lie wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , for instance as in the case of persons under their control in custody , strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention . The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-IV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII ; and GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and PERSON and PERSON , cited above , LAW ) .

In the absence of such explanation the ORG can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government ( see PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

The ORG has already noted that it is not in a position to receive a direct account of the events complained of from the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ; also compare and contrast with other previous cases involving complaints about torture , ill - treatment in custody or unlawful detention , for example , ORG , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE ; PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG DATE ; and ORG and Others , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

NORP The regime applied to High Value Detainees such as the applicant is described in detail in the ORG declassified documents , the DATE ORG and also , on the basis , inter alia , of the applicant ’s own account , in the DATE ORG . That regime included transfers of detainees to multiple locations and involved holding them in continuous solitary confinement and incommunicado detention throughout the entire period of their undisclosed detention . The transfers to unknown locations and unpredictable conditions of detention were specifically designed to deepen their sense of disorientation and isolation . The detainees were usually unaware of their exact location ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL ; and paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

As held in GPE ( PERSON ) ( cited above , § CARDINAL ) and as emerges from the material cited above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , since DATE the applicant has not had contact with the outside world , save the ORG team in DATE , ORG members and his GPE counsel . It has also been submitted that the applicant ’s communications with the outside world are subject to unprecedented restrictions and that his communications with his GPE counsel and his account of experiences in ORG custody are presumptively classified . In fact , for DATE , he has been subjected to a practical ban on communication with others , apart from mail contact with his family which was allowed at some point after his transfer to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The above difficulties in gathering and producing evidence in the present case caused by the restrictions on the applicant ’s contact with the outside world and by the extreme secrecy surrounding the GPE rendition operations have inevitably had an impact on his ability to plead his case before the ORG . Indeed , in his application and further written pleadings the events complained of were to a considerable extent reconstructed from threads of information gleaned from numerous public sources .

In consequence , the ORG ’s establishment of the facts of the case is to a great extent based on circumstantial evidence , including a large amount of evidence obtained through the international inquiries , considerably redacted documents released by the ORG , the declassified DATE ORG , other public sources and the testimony of the experts heard by ORG ( see also PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and GPE v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

Furthermore , it is to be noted that while the ORG firmly denied the applicant ’s allegations in so far as they concerned GPE , they refrained from making any comments on the facts relating to the circumstances preceding his alleged rendition to GPE on CARDINAL or DATE or following his alleged transfer from the country on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

However , the facts complained of in the present case are part of a chain of events lasting from DATE to CARDINAL September CARDINAL and concerning various countries . The examination of the case necessarily involves the establishment of links between the dates and periods relevant to the applicant ’s detention and a sequence of alleged rendition flights to those countries . Accordingly , the ORG ’s establishment of the facts and assessment of evidence can not be limited to the events that allegedly took place in GPE but must , in so far as is necessary and relevant for the findings in the present case , take into account the circumstances occurring before and after his alleged detention in GPE ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The ORG has already established beyond reasonable doubt the facts concerning the applicant ’s capture , rendition and secret detention until DATE , the date of his rendition on plane NCARDINALP from GPE to another ORG secret detention facility ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The relevant passages from GPE ( PERSON ) containing the ORG ’s findings of fact are cited above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Some additional elements , which are all fully consistent with the ORG ’s establishment of the facts in that case , can also be found in the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

It is alleged that before being rendered by the ORG to GPE the applicant had been detained in ORG from DATE to Spring DATE and , subsequently in GPE , GPE until CARDINAL or DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In GPE ( PERSON ) Mr GPE testified that on DATE the plane NCARDINALP had taken the applicant from GPE , GPE via GPE and Rabat to ORG . The plane ’s destinations to GPE and GPE had been disguised by the so - called “ dummy ” flight planning , showing , among other things GPE , not GPE as the arrival airport in GPE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

In the present case , PERSON , having analysed the available evidence , testified that “ PERSON must have ... been taken to ORG on that flight ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The NCARDINALP rendition circuit of DATE was analysed in detail in GPE ( PERSON ) , where , as stated above , the Court held that on DATE Mr PERSON had been transferred by the ORG from GPE on board that plane to another ORG secret detention facility elsewhere . It also held that this flight had marked the end of ORG - associated aircraft landings in GPE and the closure of the ORG “ black site ” codenamed “ Quartz ” in that country ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . The collation of data from multiple sources shows that the plane left GPE on DATE and undertook a DATE flight circuit during which it landed in CARDINAL countries . It arrived in PERSON from GPE . It flew from GPE to GPE , then to LOC and from Rabat to FAC on TIME DATE , landing there in TIME DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The DATE ORG confirms that “ beginning in DATE ” the ORG held its detainees at ORG facilities in ORG and that by a – redacted but clearly DATE in DATE “ all CARDINAL ORG detainees were transferred from ORG to other ORG detention facilities ” pending ORG ruling in PERSON v. PERSON which , as the GPE authorities expected , “ might grant habeas corpus rights to the CARDINAL ORG detainees ” . The transfer was preceded by consultations among the GPE authorities in DATE . It was recommended by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

At the fact - finding hearing in the present case , Mr GPE explained that the applicant had been transferred from ORG on board the rendition plane NCARDINALVM on DATE . The flight was first part of the ORG double rendition circuit performed by that plane DATE and DATE . On the first circuit some prisoners , including the applicant , were transferred to GPE directly ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) . Mr Black confirmed that everyone who had been taken to ORG had had to be moved out in DATE or DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The experts identified the country to which the applicant had been transferred from ORG as GPE on the basis of the correlation of the flight data and unredacted information in the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

Furthermore , both experts confirmed that the ORG , due to various disagreements with the NORP authorities , had been forced to take all its prisoners out of GPE in DATE . In that regard , the DATE ORG relates “ tensions ” with a country whose name is redacted . Those tensions arose in connection with the “ deterioration of intelligence cooperation ” and the treatment of their prisoners by the local authorities , resulting in “ cries of pain ” being heard by ORG detainees kept in the same detention facility . It states that the ORG detainees were transferred out of the country concerned in DATE ; DATE was redacted but seems to have comprised CARDINAL characters ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) .

Both experts indicated DATE as DATE in question . Mr GPE , referring to the NORP detention facility , testified that “ it [ had been ] in this site that PERSON found himself in DATE , specifically DATE , when the aforementioned clear - out of GPE [ had taken ] place ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON stated that “ after a certain time in GPE , the ORG [ had ] had too many disagreements with ORG with regard to treatment of prisoners in GPE . ... And so everyone who [ had been ] in GPE [ had been ] moved out at the latest in DATE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .

NORP In the light of the material in its possession – which has not been as such contested by the Government ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) – the ORG finds no counter evidence capable of casting doubt on the accuracy of the experts’ conclusions regarding the above sequence of events , the places of the applicant ’s secret detention and the dates of his transfers during the relevant period .

Accordingly , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :

( CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE on board NCARDINALP the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE , GPE to ORG , GPE ;

( CARDINAL ) from DATE the applicant was detained in ORG ;

( CARDINAL ) on DATE on board NCARDINALVM the applicant was transferred by the ORG from ORG to GPE , GPE ;

( CARDINAL ) from DATE to an unspecified date in DATE ( redacted in the DATE ORG ) , identified by the experts as DATE , the applicant was detained in GPE at a facility used by the ORG ; and

( CARDINAL ) on an unspecified date in DATE he was transferred by the ORG from GPE to another detention facility elsewhere .

It is alleged that a ORG secret detention facility , codenamed “ Detention Site Violet ” operated in GPE from CARDINAL or DATE , the dates on which either or both ORG rendition planes ORG and PERSON brought ORG detainees to GPE , to DATE , when it was closed following the detainees’ transfer out of GPE on board the rendition plane PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The Government denied that a ORG detention facility had ever existed in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG notes at the outset that although the Government have contested the applicant ’s version of events on all accounts , they have not disputed the following facts , which were also established in the Seimas inquiry and confirmed in the course of the pre - trial investigation conducted in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and CARDINAL above ) :

( a ) In DATE the ORG - related aircraft repeatedly crossed GPE ’s airspace ; according to the CNSD Findings , on CARDINAL occasions .

( b ) In the period from DATE to DATE CARDINAL ORG - related aircraft landed in GPE :

– planes ORG and PERSON landed at FAC on , respectively , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ;

– planes PERSON and GPE landed at FAC on , respectively , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

( d ) On CARDINAL occasions the ORG officers received the ORG aircraft and “ escorted what was brought by them ” with the knowledge of the heads of the ORG :

– on DATE PERSON , which landed at Palanga airport with CARDINAL GPE passengers on board , without any thorough customs inspection of the plane being carried out ; according to the CNSD Findings , “ no cargo was unloaded from it or onto it ” ;

– on DATE PERSON , which landed at GPE airport , where a certain ORG , the ORG officer , was prevented from inspecting the aircraft and no customs inspection of the plane was carried out ; and

– on DATE TIME , which landed at Palanga airport , but the ORG documents contained no records of the landing and inspection of the plane , and no customs inspection was carried out .

( e ) In connection with the landing of NCARDINALWH in GPE on DATE and of GPE in GPE on DATE the ORG issued classified letters to the ORG , but the letter regarding the landing on DATE was delivered ex post facto , and before that event the ORG had never issued such letters .

( f ) The ORG high - ranking officers provided the GPE officers with unrestricted access to the aircraft at least on QUANTITY occasions , including on DATE .

( g ) In DATE the ORG and the ORG were in “ partnership cooperation ” , which involved the “ equipment of certain tailored facilities ” , i.e. Project No . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL .

( h ) The facilities of Project No . CARDINAL were installed in DATE .

( i ) The ORG started the implementation of Project No . CARDINAL in cooperation with the ORG at DATE ; this involved assisting the ORG in the acquisition of the land and building in GPE and carrying out construction work in order to equip the facility ; the work was carried out by contractors brought by the ORG to GPE ; the materials and equipment for the facility were brought to GPE by the ORG in containers .

( j ) Project No . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL were fully financed by the ORG .

( k ) Witnesses A and BCARDINAL , politicians questioned in the criminal investigation , were addressed in connection with “ the temporary possibility of holding persons suspected of terrorism ” and “ as regards the transportation and holding [ of ] people in GPE ” .

The ORG further notes that , according to the material in the case file , the first public disclosure of GPE ’s possible participation in the ORG secret detention scheme appeared on DATE in the ORG report . The report was followed by a more detailed publication of CARDINAL DATE . The reports mentioned “ ORG officials directly involved in or briefed on the highly classified [ HVD ] programme ” , “ a former GPE intelligence official ” , “ one of the former ORG officers involved in the secret prison program ” , “ NORP officials ” and “ a current NORP government official ” as their sources .

The DATE ORG report stated that “ NORP officials [ had ] provided the ORG with a building on the outskirts of GPE ... where CARDINAL suspects [ had been ] held for DATE until DATE when they [ had been ] moved because of public disclosures ” . The reporters said that they had viewed flight logs – shown to them by “ one of the former ORG officers involved in the secret prison program ” , confirming that ORG planes made “ repeated flights into GPE during that period ” and that the purpose of the flights had been “ to move terrorist suspects ” . The officer told the reporters that the ORG had “ arranged for false plans to be submitted to NORP aviation authorities ” . It was also reported that “ the prison in GPE [ had been ] CARDINAL of CARDINAL facilities the ORG set up after CARDINAL/CARDINAL to detain and interrogate ORG operatives captured around the world ” ( in this connection , see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In DATE ORG reported that a current NORP government official and a former GPE intelligence official had told them that the ORG had “ built one of its secret NORP prisons inside an exclusive riding academy outside GPE ” . ORG stated that “ the ORG [ had built a thick concrete wall inside the riding area . Behind the wall , it [ had ] built what CARDINAL NORP source [ had ] called a ‘ building within a ORG . On a series of thick concrete pads , it [ had ] installed what a source called ‘ prefabricated pods’ to house prisoners , each separated from another by QUANTITY . Each pod included a shower , a bed and a toilet . Separate cells were constructed for interrogations . ... Intelligence officers working at the prison [ had been ] housed next door in the converted stable ... Electrical power for both structures [ had been ] provided by a DATE ORG autonomous generator . All the electrical outlets in the renovated structure [ had been ] QUANTITY , meaning that they [ had been ] designed for NORP appliances ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The Government have contested the evidential value of the above publications and , in general terms , expressed reservations as to the evidential value of media and other reports in the public domain ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

However , at the material time the NORP authorities apparently considered the DATE ORG disclosure sufficiently credible , given that the report prompted the joint meeting of the CNSD and Committee on Foreign Affairs on CARDINAL DATE and the further parliamentary inquiry , which was opened on DATE . In the course of the inquiry the ORG interviewed CARDINAL persons , including the highest authorities of the State , and obtained various evidence , including classified information ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The CNSD , made the following findings :

( a ) In DATE the aircraft that had been linked in official investigations to the transportation of ORG detainees had crossed GPE ’s airspace on repeated occasions .

( b ) It had not been established whether ORG detainees had been transported through GPE ; however , conditions for such transportation had existed .

( c ) The ORG had received a request from the ORG to equip facilities suitable for holding detainees .

( d ) The ORG , in Project No . CARDINAL , had created conditions for holding detainees in GPE ; ” facilities suitable for holding detainees [ had been ] equipped , taking account of the requests and conditions set out by the partners ” ; however , according to evidence in the CNSD ’s possession the premises had not been used for that purpose .

( e ) While persons who had given evidence to the CNSD had denied that there existed any preconditions for holding and interrogating detainees at Project No . CARDINAL , the layout of the building , its enclosed nature and protection of the perimeter , as well as the fragmented presence of the ORG staff at the LOC allowed the ORG officers to carry out activities without the ORG ’s control and to use the infrastructure at their discretion .

The above Findings were endorsed by the LAW in its ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The Government submitted that the CNSD Findings had been subsequently verified in the pre - trial investigation conducted in DATE . According to the ORG , the investigation , based on the testimony of witnesses who had been directly involved in the implementation of Project No . CARDINAL and Project No . CARDINAL , and in the landing and departure procedures for ORG flights , had conclusively established that there had been no ORG secret detention centre in GPE , that the facilities of ORG . CARDINAL and Project No . CARDINAL had not been , and could not have been , used for holding detainees and that there had been no evidence of ORG detainees ever being held in the country . The sole purpose of the ORG planes landing was , in the ORG ’s words , the delivery of a “ special cargo ” , described as a “ connection ” or “ communication ” equipment providing the ORG and the ORG “ with technical services in order to implement their joint project ” . The ORG also attached importance to the fact that GPE had not been the object of any international inquiries conducted into the NORP countries’ collusion in the ORG HVD Programme ( see CARDINAL above ) .

As regards the latter argument , the ORG observes that it is true that , on account of the fact that the allegations of the ORG secret prison being run in GPE emerged only in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , GPE had not been included in any of the inquiries carried out by ORG and ORG in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Nor were any international investigations of a scale comparable to ORG and ORG subsequently conducted into the allegations concerning GPE .

However , the investigative work of the experts involved in the DATE ORG encompassed GPE ’s possible involvement in the ORG scheme of secret prisons . According to the ORG experts , research for the study , including data strings relating to the country , appear to confirm that it was integrated into the ORG extraordinary rendition programme in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG delegation visit to GPE on DATE and the DATE ORG involved the issue of alleged ORG secret prisons . While the central focus for the delegation was to try to assess the effectiveness of the pre - trial investigation which was at that time pending , the ORG considered it important to visit the “ CARDINAL tailored facilities ” identified in the CNSD Findings as Project No . CARDINAL and Project No . CARDINAL . The DATE ORG , referring to ORG . CARDINAL , described the facilities as “ far larger than ” Project No . CARDINAL ” and consisting of “ CARDINAL buildings ... connected and divided into CARDINAL distinct sectors ” . In CARDINAL of the buildings , “ the layout of LOC resembled a large metal container enclosed with a surrounding external structure ” . The ORG refrained from providing a more detailed description of the facilities but concluded that even though when visited by the delegation the premises did not contain anything that was “ highly suggestive of a context of detention ” , both ORG . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL could be adapted for detention purposes “ with relatively little effort ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

It is also to be noted that since DATE , ORG , through ORG , has conducted an inquiry into allegations concerning GPE ’s complicity in the ORG extraordinary rendition scheme . As part of the inquiry , the ORG delegation visited GPE and carried out an inspection of ORG . CARDINAL which , in the words of ORG , PERSON , was described as a “ kind of building within the building , a double - shell structure ” equipped with an “ enormous air - conditioning system and a water - pumping system , the purpose of which [ was ] not evident ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . That visit gave rise to concerns subsequently expressed in the DATE EP Resolution , which stated that “ the layout [ of ORG . CARDINAL ] and installations inside appear[ed ] to be compatible with the detention of prisoners ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Furthermore , the conclusions of the pre - trial investigation relied on by the ORG and the ORG ’s explanation of the purpose of the ORG planes landing seem to have been contradicted by other evidence in the ORG ’s possession , including material available in the public domain and the PERSON testimony .

To begin with , as regards the purpose of the ORG - linked planes landing in GPE at the material time , the extensive flight data produced by the applicant , including the data in the DATE Reprieve Briefing , and expert evidence show that in respect of CARDINAL out of CARDINAL planes that landed in and departed from GPE and Palanga airports during the period from DATE to DATE the ORG used its methodology of “ dummy ” flight planning , that is to say , a deliberate disguise of their true destinations by declaring in the flight plans the route that the planes did not , nor even intended to , fly ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . According to expert evidence obtained by ORG in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , as well as in the present case , the methodology of disguising flight planning pertained primarily to those renditions which dropped detainees off at the destination – in other words , at the airport connected with the ORG secret detention facility ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

( a ) Significantly , the PERSON ’s circuit executed on DATE included CARDINAL disguised DATE undeclared DATE destinations on the plane ’s route from LOC . The first disguised destination was GPE , whereas the flight plan was filed for GPE ; the second one was Palanga , whereas the flight plan was filed for GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

( b ) The PERSON ’s circuit on DATE was disguised by both the “ dummy ” flight planning and switching aircraft in the course of the rendition operation , also called a “ double - plane switch ” – that is to say , another ORG method of disguising its prisoner - transfers , which was designed , according to expert GPE , to avoid the eventuality of the same aircraft appearing at the site of CARDINAL different places of secret detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; see also PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

The experts testified that the “ double - plane switch ” operation had been executed on DATE in GPE by CARDINAL planes – NCARDINALAB , which arrived there from GPE after collecting detainees from the ORG “ black site ” in GPE , and PERSON . The ORG detainees “ switched ” planes in GPE and they were transferred from PERSON onto PERSON for the rendition flight . On its departure from GPE , PERSON filed a false plan to GPE in order to enable the flight to enter NORP airspace , but its true destination was GPE , where it landed on DATE in TIME ( see CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In relation to this flight it is also noteworthy that the flight data submitted by the NORP aviation authorities to the CNSD in the course of the ORG inquiry indicated that PERSON had arrived from GPE , GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Witnesses questioned in the pre - trial investigation gave inconsistent indications as to where the plane arrived from . For instance , Witness BCARDINAL spoke of an “ unplanned aircraft from GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Witness BCARDINAL ( “ person B ” ) said that it had “ arrived from GPE without passengers ” and that it had “ arrived in GPE from GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG , for its part , informed the prosecutor that “ they could [ have ] confuse[d ] the code of GPE and GPE due to their similarity ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

( c ) According to the experts , a combination of “ dummy ” flight planning and aircraft switching methodologies was likewise used in connection with the ORG flight on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The Palanga airport records indicated that on that date the plane had arrived in GPE from GPE and that it had left for PERSON on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . However , as stated in the DATE Reprieve Briefing and confirmed by the experts at the fact - finding hearing , a false plan was filed for GPE , whereas the plane flew to GPE where it made connection with GPE , another ORG rendition plane . The DATE ORG also states that the documents relating to the planning of these CARDINAL trips showed complex attempts to disguise the fact that the purpose of the trips was to provide a connection between GPE and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the ORG ’s view , the ORG ’s above repeated , deliberate recourse to the complex flight - disguising methodologies typical of rendition flights transporting detainees to “ black sites ” does not appear to be consistent with the stated purpose of the ORG - linked planes landing in GPE , which according to the Government had been merely the delivery of “ special cargo ” , described as “ communication ” or “ connection ” equipment ” , in the context of the routine intelligence cooperation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG further observes that in respect of the above planes the authorities applied a distinct practice , which resembles the special procedure for landings of ORG aircraft in PERSON airport followed by the NORP authorities in DATE and found by ORG to have been one of the elements indicative of the ORG ’s complicity in the ORG HVD Programme ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

In particular , as in GPE , the planes were not subject to any customs or the border guard control . On DATE the ORG officer ORG was prevented from carrying out the PERSON plane inspection ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In connection with the arrivals of the “ partners’ ” and the ORG officers at the airports , classified letters asking for access to the aircraft were issued to the ORG at least on CARDINAL occasions – CARDINAL ex post facto , following the above incident with the ORG officer on DATE and CARDINAL in connection with the LOC landing in GPE on DATE . Also , the rendition planes landing involved special security procedures organised by the ORG ’s counterpart in GPE . As confirmed by the ORG officers questioned in the course of the pre - trial investigation , they used to escort “ the partners ” , that is to say , the ORG teams to and from GPE and Palanga airports . In that connection , the ORG asked the ORG to make security arrangements . In the airport , the ORG vehicles approached the aircraft , whereas the ORG ’s escorting vehicles remained at some distance ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

At the fact - finding hearing held in the present case the experts , Mr GPE and PERSON , confirmed categorically that DATE beyond reasonable doubt – a ORG secret detention facility had operated in GPE in the period indicated by the applicant . In the same categorical terms they identified GPE as a country hosting the ORG secret detention facility codenamed “ Detention Site Violet ” in the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The DATE Reprieve Briefing , relying on research into the ORG rendition operations , the analysis of the public data regarding the ORG transfers and the unredacted parts of the report , likewise concluded that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that CARDINAL of the facilities adapted by the ORG in GPE had been used to hold prisoners and that ORG had been located in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The experts and the PERSON gave the same time - frame DATE for the ORG ’s secret prison operation . The ORG stated that the opening of the site had been marked by the transfer of prisoners which could have been effected on either or both of CARDINAL ORG rendition aircraft – ORG , which landed in GPE on DATE , or PERSON , which landed in GPE on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Both experts stated that the opening of the ORG “ black site ” in GPE had been prompted by the disagreements with the NORP authorities in the administering of a secret detention site used by the ORG in GPE , which had led to the transfer of the ORG detainees out of GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

In that regard , Mr GPE referred to the “ cyclical nature ” of the ORG detention sites and explained that the ORG had included several junctures “ at which CARDINAL detention ORG ] abruptly and another open[ed ] in its place ” . In his view , “ DATE had been the critical juncture at which ORG detention operations overseas had been dramatically overhauled ” . In the light of the flight data of DATE , there were CARDINAL destinations for detainees being taken from GPE –Romania and GPE .

Mr GPE reached the “ incontrovertible conclusion ” that when the facility in GPE had been finally closed , the only possibility was that ORG in GPE then took the detainees from GPE in conjunction with ORG in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . He further stated that references in the DATE ORG had “ accorded completely with the timings , with the character and with the chronological progression of detention operations in respect of GPE ” . He referred to the report ’s sections stating that ORG had been created in a “ separate country ” from any of the other detention sites mentioned therein . This , in his view , had opened a new territory in the ORG and referred to a site that had endured beyond the life span of ORG in GPE which , according to report , was closed shortly after the ORG publication of CARDINAL DATE .

In that connection , Mr GPE also testified that the CARDINAL projects in GPE aimed at providing support to the ORG detention operations , referred to in the ORG inquiry as ORG . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL , corresponded to the description of CARDINAL facilities in the country hosting ORG . In particular , the report stated that by DATE the ORG had concluded that its completed but still unused holding cell in the country DATE by which it had meant ORG . DATE had been insufficient . It further stated that the ORG had thus sought to build a new expanded facility in the country . This corresponded precisely with the description of the provenance of Project No . CARDINAL as given in the CNSD Findings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Mr Black said that the report clearly indicated that ORG had operated from DATE . The site had been in a country where there had previously been another site that had never been used . This detail of there having been CARDINAL sites , CARDINAL never used and CARDINAL that had been used DATE corresponded accurately with the parliamentary inquiry ’s findings , stating that “ partners ” – the ORG – had equipped CARDINAL sites . His research established that flights went into and out of GPE precisely at the time that the prisoners were said to have been moved into and out of ORG . This corresponded with flights into and out of GPE in , firstly , DATE , then in DATE and lastly in DATE ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) .

PERSON added that , taking into account the whole weight of various indicators , “ the only solution that ma[d]e any sense is that the solution that indeed the site in GPE [ had ] operated at the times that we [ had ] stated and [ had been ] serviced by the flights that we [ had ] stated ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In that context the ORG would also note that , as shown by the evidence referred to above , the DATE flights were followed by the landing on DATE of the plane PERSON , which , according to the experts , transferred ORG detainees , via a “ double - plane switch ” operation in GPE , from the ORG facility codenamed “ FAC ” in the DATE ORG and located in GPE . PERSON added that PERSON had been transferred from GPE to ORG in GPE on that plane ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The experts were not in complete agreement as to which DATE or DATE was the CARDINAL definitely marking the opening of the ORG “ black site ” in GPE .

Mr GPE considered that it was more likely that the flight of ORG on CARDINAL DATE signified the opening of the “ black site ” , since it had landed in GPE and GPE was the airport physically associated with ORG , the location of the ORG facility . However , he did not rule out the possibility that another airfield , GPE , may have been used in conjunction with ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

PERSON , for his part , was categorical in stating that the transfer of detainees from GPE to GPE had been executed by the NCARDINALWH flight into GPE on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

However , the ORG does not find it indispensable to rule on which specific date the ORG site in GPE opened given that , according to the evidence before it , there were only these CARDINAL , closely situated , dates on which it could have happened .

As regards the date marking the end of Detention Site Violet ’s operation , both Mr GPE and PERSON stated that it had been closed as a result of medical issues experienced by ORG detainees , who had been refused medical treatment in the country , as described in the DATE ORG . The experts linked the closure to the rendition mission executed by the plane NCARDINALMA , which had landed in GPE on DATE . They stated that it had taken the ORG prisoners via GPE by means of an aircraft switching operation to another detention facility , which they unambiguously identified as “ ORG ” located in GPE . The DATE PERSON likewise stated that the above transfer had matched the closure of ORG . In that regard , it also referred to the passages in the DATE ORG , stating that the site had been closed as a result of lack of available medical care in the “ CARDINAL - character redacted ” DATE the redacted month could only be “ DATE ” or “ DATE ” on account of the length of the redaction ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

As regards the physical location of ORG , both Mr GPE and PERSON stated that , beyond reasonable doubt , it had been located in GPE , a neighbourhood of GPE , in the former horse - riding academy converted into a customised ORG detention facility , the construction of which had been supervised by the ORG “ afresh ” . PERSON , who in DATE had made several trips to ORG to interview local people , said it was clear from those interviews that the NORP had been there , had been fitting the site out , had been guarding the place and that vehicles with tinted windows had been coming and going ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

Lastly , the experts , on the analysis of the DATE ORG and recently declassified ORG material , also established that CARDINAL ORG prisoners were held at ORG and conclusively identified CARDINAL of them – PERSON , who was explicitly mentioned in the report in connection with medical issues experienced at that site , PERSON and the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG observes that the DATE ORG includes several references to ORG . It clearly refers to CARDINAL detention facilities in the country hosting that site : CARDINAL completed but , “ by DATE ” , still unused and considered by the ORG as insufficient “ given the growing number of ORG detainees in the program and the ORG ’s interest in interrogating multiple detainees at the same detention site ” and CARDINAL “ expanded ” which the ORG “ sought to build ” . In that connection , the ORG offered some redacted sum of CARDINAL “ to ‘ show appreciation’ ... for the ... support ” for the ORG HVD Programme ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . That information is consistent with evidence from witnesses M , N , O and P , who were questioned in the criminal investigation . They confirmed that in DATE N and O had been assigned to assist their ORG partners in finding suitable premises for a joint project – an “ intelligence support centre”– in respect of which the partners had “ used to cover all expenses ” . According to ORG , in DATE the “ partners ” had come and proposed to organise a joint operation , “ to establish the LOC in GPE for the protection of secret collaborators ” . Witness O said that the ORG partners had chosen the premises which had then become ORG . CARDINAL and that they had started to come in DATE , had carried out the work themselves and had brought material and the equipment in the containers ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The DATE ORG further states that ORG “ opened in DATE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This element corresponds to the dates of the landings of the rendition planes ORG and NCARDINALWH – CARDINAL and DATE . It also corresponds to the statement of ORG , who testified that ORG . CARDINAL had been “ established at DATE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The closure of ORG is mentioned in the report in a specific context and chronology , namely “ press stories ” , in particular the ORG publication of CARDINAL DATE that led to the closure of ORG and “ the ORG ’s inability to provide emergency medical care ” due to the refusal of the country hosting ORG to admit PERSON , CARDINAL of the ORG detainees , to a local hospital . This refusal , according to the report , resulted in the ORG ’s having sought assistance from third - party countries in providing medical care to him and “ CARDINAL other ORG detainees with acute ailments ” . In relation to the ORG publication , the report gives a fairly specific time - frame for the closure of ORG , which occurred “ shortly thereafter ” . However , ORG still operated in “ DATE ” . At that time “ the ORG was holding CARDINAL detainees in its CARDINAL remaining facilities , ORG ... and ORG ” . ORG was closed in DATE , in DATE whose name comprised CARDINAL characters which were redacted in the report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As noted in the DATE Reprieve Briefing , there are CARDINAL possibilities : the relevant DATE could be either “ DATE ” or “ DATE .

Considering the material referred to above as whole , the ORG is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence in favour of the applicant ’s allegation that the ORG secret detention site operated in GPE DATE and DATE . Accordingly , the burden of proof should shift to the respondent Government ( see PERSON , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP However , the Government have failed to demonstrate why the evidence referred to above can not serve to corroborate the applicant ’s allegations . Apart from their reliance on the conclusions of the criminal investigation of DATE and , in particular , the testimony of witnesses who , as the Government underlined , had all consistently denied that any transfers of ORG detainees had taken place or that a ORG had run a secret detention facility in GPE , they have not offered convincing reasons for the series and purpose of the ORG - associated aircraft landings at GPE and GPE DATE and DATE , the special procedures followed by the authorities in that connection and the actual purpose served by ORG . CARDINAL at the material time ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

The witness testimony obtained in the criminal investigation is the key evidence adduced by the ORG in support of their arguments ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The ORG has not had the possibility of having access to full versions of the testimony since the relevant material was and still is classified . It has nevertheless been able to assess that evidence on the basis of a summary description produced by the Government ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

Having considered the material submitted , the ORG finds a number of elements that do not appear to be consistent with the version of events presented by the Government .

First , the Government asserted that both ORG . CARDINAL and No . CARDINAL were found to have been completely unsuitable for secret detention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG does not find it necessary to analyse in detail the purposes actually served by ORG . CARDINAL or determine whether or not that facility was used , as the ORG argued at the oral hearing , for “ extraction ” or “ exfiltration ” of secret agents or otherwise , since in the present case it is not claimed that ORG detainees were held in that facility . It thus suffices for the ORG to take note of the CNSD ’s conclusion that in Project No . CARDINAL “ conditions were created for holding detainees in GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Secondly , as regards Project No . CARDINAL , the Government submitted that while the exact purpose served by the premises at the material time could not be revealed since it was classified , the witnesses had unequivocally confirmed that no premises suitable for detainees had been located there . Moreover , access to the premises had been under the permanent surveillance of the ORG and there had been no secret zones inaccessible to the ORG officers in the building . This excluded any possibility of unauthorised access or holding detainees in the LOC ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

However , the ORG notes that Witnesses N and O , the ORG officers assigned to assist the ORG partners , who escorted them to and from the airports and who were also responsible for supervision of the premises , said that they had not visited all the rooms . ORG said that he had not had access to the “ administration area ” . O was not given access to all the LOC . Moreover , the building was apparently not used for the purpose of the declared “ joint operation ” of an intelligence support centre . The only NORP intelligence personnel present in the building were the CARDINAL ORG officers M , N and O , who supervised the building on changing shifts even if nobody was there . Witness O stated that he had not known who had arrived at the LOC or “ with what they had been occupied with ” . Witness N “ was not aware of the contents of the operations ” that were carried out in Project No . CARDINAL . Witnesses N and O “ actively supervised ” the building until DATE but then the number of the ORG partners’ visits decreased ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

As regards the ORG ’s explanation that the premises were acquired for the SSD ’s needs and used for “ short - term meetings ” with “ their guests ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the layout of CARDINAL of the buildings at ORG . CARDINAL , depicted by the ORG as “ a large metal container enclosed within a surrounding external structure ” and by the ORG delegation as “ a kind of building within the building ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) does not strike the ORG as being a structure typical for the declared purpose . Also , no convincing explanation has been provided as to why ORG . CARDINAL , claimed to have been designated for an “ intelligence support centre ” and reconstructed with evidently considerable effort and expense on the part of the ORG had DATE according to the witnesses – been virtually unused by the ORG or their partners throughout DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The Government further argued that in the light of abundant evidence it had been established in the criminal investigation that the purpose of CARDINAL ORG - linked flights into GPE , alleged to have transported the applicant to and out of GPE , namely GPE and ORG , which had taken place on , respectively , CARDINAL DATE and DATE had been the delivery of a “ special cargo ” . The object of the delivery was “ special equipment for a special investigation department ” in a number of boxes , which had all been of the same size , QUANTITY long ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) .

NORP However , the witness statements relied on are not only partly inconsistent with each other but they also do not fully support the Government ’s account . Furthermore , the Government ’s account is at variance with evidence collected in the course of the parliamentary inquiry . In this regard , the ORG would refer to testimony given by the ORG officers involved in escorting “ cargo ” and the ORG partners to and from the NORP airports and to the CNSD Findings .

As regards the ORG ’s submission that the purpose of the flight PERSON which landed in GPE on DATE was the delivery of cargo containing the “ connection ” or “ communication ” equipment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the ORG notes that none of the witnesses heard in the criminal investigation referred to any “ delivery of cargo ” to GPE in relation to the plane in question ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY above ) . It further notes that the ORG ’s contention stands in contrast with the CNSD Findings , which in the light of the evidence gathered in the inquiry , established that “ no cargo was unloaded from it or onto it ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , as confirmed by the DATE ORG letter , “ CARDINAL GPE citizens arrived in GPE on that plane ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Moreover , the statements made by witnesses V and O do not support the ORG ’s contention that the purpose of the flight GPE into GPE on DATE was likewise “ to deliver equipment ” for the NORP “ special investigation department ” . On the contrary , the CARDINAL escorting officers clearly related the loading of a “ cargo ” onto the ORG aircraft from the ORG partners’ vehicles ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . This happened in the course of what was called an “ operation ” , which suggests that the activities involved in the aircraft landing and loading were not quite of a routine nature . As in respect of the other ORG aircraft landings referred to above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the special procedure , without any customs or ORG control , had been applied .

Having regard to the inconsistency of the ORG ’s version with the witness statements and the factual findings made by ORG and in the light of the documentary and expert evidence analysed in detail above , the Government ’s explanations as to the purposes served by the ORG rendition flights landing in GPE DATE and DATE and the facility Project No . CARDINAL can not be regarded as convincing .

In view of the foregoing and taking into account all the elements analysed in detail above , the ORG concludes that the Government have not produced any evidence capable of contradicting the applicant ’s allegations .

In particular , they have not refuted the applicant ’s argument that the planes ORG , PERSON and PERSON that landed in GPE DATE and DATE served the purposes of the ORG rendition operations and the conclusions of the experts heard by the ORG , categorically stating that the aircraft in question were used by the ORG for transportation of prisoners into GPE . Nor have they refuted the applicant ’s assertion that the above rendition flights marked the opening and the closure of a ORG secret prison referred to in the DATE ORG as “ Detention Site Violet ” , which was conclusively confirmed by expert evidence to the effect that ORG was located in GPE and operated during the period indicated by the applicant ( see also and compare with GPE v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Consequently , the ORG considers the applicant ’s allegations sufficiently convincing and , having regard to the above evidence from various sources corroborating his version , finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :

( a ) a ORG detention facility , codenamed ORG according to the DATE ORG , was located in GPE ;

( b ) the facility started operating either from DATE , the date of the ORG rendition flight ORG into GPE airport , or from DATE , the date of the ORG rendition flight NCARDINALWH into GPE airport ; and

( c ) the facility was closed on DATE and its closure was marked by the ORG rendition flight GPE into GPE airport , which arrived from GPE , GPE and , having disguised its destination in its flight plan by indicating GPE , on DATE took off for GPE , GPE .

It is alleged that the applicant was transferred to GPE from GPE , GPE either on DATE on board ORG or on DATE on board PERSON and that he had been secretly detained at ORG in GPE until DATE , when he had been transferred out of GPE on board PERSON ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

The ORG is mindful of the fact that , as regards the applicant ’s actual presence in GPE , there is no direct evidence that it was the applicant who was transported on CARDINAL or DATE , the CARDINAL possible dates indicated by the experts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) from GPE to GPE or that he was subsequently transferred on DATE from GPE to another ORG secret detention facility on board the plane NCARDINALMA .

The applicant , who for DATE on end was held in detention conditions specifically designed to isolate and disorientate detainees by transfers to unknown locations , even if he had been allowed to testify before the ORG , would not be able to say where he was detained . Nor can it be reasonably expected that he will ever , on his own , be able to identify the places in which he was held .

No trace of the applicant can , or will , be found in any official flight or border police records in GPE or in other countries because his presence on the planes and on their territories was , by the very nature of the rendition operations , purposefully not to be recorded . As confirmed by expert GPE in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , in the countries concerned the official records showing numbers of passengers and crew arriving and departing on the rendition planes neither included , nor purported to include detainees who were brought into or out of the territory involuntarily , by means of clandestine HVD renditions . Those detainees were never listed among the persons on board in documents filed with any official institution ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

In view of the foregoing , in order to ascertain whether or not it can be concluded that the applicant was detained at ORG in GPE at the relevant time , the ORG will take into account all the facts that have already been found established beyond reasonable doubt ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) and analyse all other material in its possession , including , in particular , the DATE ORG and expert evidence reconstructing the chronology of the applicant ’s rendition and detention in DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

As noted above , the facts of the present case form an integral part of a chain of events lasting from the applicant ’s capture on DATE to his transfer by the ORG into the custody of the GPE military authorities in FAC on DATE . Those events took place in multiple countries hosting the ORG secret detention facilities that operated under the ORG during that period . They involve a continuing sequence of the applicant ’s renditions from CARDINAL country to another , with the periods of his detention at each country ’s “ black site ” being marked by the movements of the ORG ’s rendition aircraft corresponding to locations within the network of secret prisons ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG further notes that the facts concerning the applicant ’s secret detention and continuous renditions from the time of his capture in GPE , GPE , on DATE to his rendition from GPE , GPE , in DATE , including the names of the countries in which he was detained , the exact dates on which he was transferred by the ORG to and out of each country and the identities of all the rendition planes on which he was transferred have already been established conclusively and to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE and in the present case ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

NORP In particular , it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that until an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was held in secret detention in GPE , at a facility used by the ORG and that on that date he was transferred by the ORG from GPE to another detention facility elsewhere ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

It has also been established to the same standard of proof , beyond reasonable doubt , that :

( a ) The ORG secret detention facility codenamed “ Detention Site Violet ” in the DATE ORG became operational in GPE either on DATE , the date of the ORG rendition flight ORG from Rabat via GPE , which landed at GPE airport or on DATE , the date of the ORG rendition flight PERSON from GPE via GPE , which landed at Palanga airport .

( b ) The Detention Site Violet operated in GPE until DATE , the date of the ORG rendition flight GPE from GPE airport to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

It accordingly remains for the ORG to determine whether it has been adequately demonstrated to the required standard of proof that the applicant was transferred from GPE to GPE on either of the DATE ORG flights and whether he was secretly detained in GPE over the subsequent period , until DATE .

The ORG observes that the main argument put forward by the ORG is that there is no credible evidence confirming the applicant ’s presence in GPE during that period and no link between the impugned flights and the applicant . In the Government ’s submission , even if the flights had been linked with the ORG and landed in GPE , it could not constitute a proof of his detention in the country ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

It has already been reiterated above that , given the veil of secrecy surrounding the ORG rendition operations , it can not be expected that any traces of the applicant are to be found in any official flight or border control records in GPE or elsewhere . As in other cases concerning the ORG HVD Programme the fate of the applicant can be reconstructed only by an analysis of strings of data from various sources available in the public domain and expert evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The fact that the applicant ’s name does not appear in the official record with reference to his alleged secret detention in GPE is not therefore decisive for the ORG ’s assessment .

NORP In that regard , the ORG notes that the DATE ORG contains a number of often extensive references to the applicant , in particular in relation to the EITs inflicted on him during the series of interrogations , including the use of waterboarding , in the early stages of his secret detention at ORG located in GPE and “ debriefing ” that he underwent at ORG located in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Yet , as also confirmed by the experts , the report does not mention the applicant explicitly by name in connection with ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

Nonetheless , the experts , following a comprehensive analysis of the entirety of the available documentary evidence concerning the ORG ’s extraordinary rendition operations at the material time , were able to conclude that he had been detained at that site on the basis of a number of other elements consistently demonstrating that there is no – and there could not be any DATE alternative account of the applicant ’s fate following his DATE rendition from GPE .

The ORG would reiterate that the experts started by determining , beyond reasonable doubt , that GPE was the only place in which the applicant could have been detained in DATE and that , according to the rendition aircraft schedules at that time he could only have been transferred from there either to ORG in GPE or to ORG in GPE . On the basis of evidence indicating his absence from ORG in the relevant period , the one and only remaining destination of the applicant ’s transfer from GPE was Detention Site Violet . They further went on to infer information relevant for the applicant from unredacted passages of the report concerning other HVDs in ORG custody , PERSON , simultaneously being detained in the country hosting ORG . The experts correlated this information with the data relating to the ORG detainee transfers in the period of the operation of the NORP site , including the transfer from ORG on DATE and the transfer from ORG , via GPE and an aircraft switching operation , to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) .

The ORG would refer , in particular , to the following statements made by the experts .

Mr GPE stated that “ through an intimate familiarity with the chronology of [ the applicant ’s ] detention ” he had reached the conclusion that “ there [ was ] CARDINAL place he could have been in the early part of DATE and that that place was indeed GPE ” . He knew that “ the transfers out of GPE in DATE went to other active ‘ black sites’ that that CARDINAL of these was ‘ Detention Site Black’ in GPE , but that there was also another one in a separate country ... and ... this other country was GPE ” . He added that “ because [ the applicant ] did not arrive in GPE , ‘ ORG ” – which he knew based on his “ years’ long investigations into the operations of that site ... the only other destination to which he could have been transferred was the active site in GPE and this transfer took place in accordance with the flights ... in DATE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

PERSON testified that , based on the overall effect of the evidence , he was satisfied “ that beyond reasonable doubt PERSON was held in GPE starting from DATE ” . He said that while prima facie it was possible that the applicant , being in GPE in DATE , had been moved either to GPE or to GPE , there was evidence indicating , first , that he was not in GPE in or prior to DATE and , second , that he was in GPE in DATE ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

The experts attributed a different threshold of proof to their conclusions .

Mr GPE stated that on the “ balance of probabilities ” , he believed it was established that the applicant had been secretly detained at ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . He was nevertheless satisfied as to “ the presence of PERSON , respectively in DATE in GPE up to the point where the ORG detention [ facility ] [ had been ] cleared , thereafter on the territory of GPE in ORG coded as ‘ PERSON and thereafter on the territory of GPE in FAC coded as ‘ Brown’ ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Also , he said that there was a “ categorical certainty ” that the applicant had been brought to GPE on one of the DATE flights from GPE to GPE – NCARDINALCL or NCARDINALWH – either on CARDINAL or on DATE and that “ beyond reasonable doubt he [ had been ] taken to GPE when he [ had ] left GPE ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

PERSON categorically stated that the applicant , beyond reasonable doubt , had been held in GPE from DATE and that he believed that the applicant had been “ flown into GPE on GPE on DATE and flown out of GPE on GPE and GPE on DATE ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG does not consider that this difference in terminology used by the experts has a direct and dispositive bearing on its own assessment of the evidence . It reiterates that , while in assessing evidence it applies “ the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt ” , that concept is independent from the approach of the national legal systems which use that standard . The ORG is not called upon to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability based on “ beyond reasonable doubt ” or “ balance of probabilities ” standards as applied by the domestic courts but on the responsibility of the respondent ORG under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above , with references to the ORG ’s case - law ) .

Based on its free evaluation of all the material in its possession , the ORG considers that there is prima facie evidence corroborating the applicant ’s allegation as to his secret detention in GPE , at ORG , from CARDINAL or DATE to DATE . Consequently , the burden of proof should shift to the respondent Government .

NORP However , the Government , apart from their above contention that there is no credible evidence confirming the applicant ’s detention in GPE , in particular in any border control records , and their general denial that any ORG secret detention facility had operated in the country , have not adduced any counter - evidence capable of refuting the experts’ conclusions .

Having regard to the very nature of the ORG secret detention scheme , the ORG ’s argument that there is no indication of the applicant ’s physical presence in GPE DATE which they sought to support by the fact that his name had not been found in the records of passengers on the flights in DATE CARDINAL-March DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) – can not be upheld . In the ORG ’s view , it would be unacceptable if the ORG , having failed to comply with their obligation to register duly and in accordance with the domestic law all persons arriving on or departing from NORP territory on the ORG planes and having relinquished any border control in respect of the rendition aircraft ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , could take advantage of those omissions in the fact - finding procedure before the ORG . When allowing the ORG to operate a detention site on NORP soil the Government were , by pure virtue of LAW , required to secure the information necessary to identify detainees brought to the country ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below , with references to the ORG ’s case - law ) . The ORG can not accept that the Government ’s failure to do so should have adverse consequences for the applicant in its assessment of whether it has been adequately demonstrated by the ORG , against the strong prima facie case made by the applicant , that his detention in GPE did not take place .

In view of the foregoing , the ORG considers the applicant ’s allegations sufficiently convincing . For the same reasons as stated above in regard to the date marking the opening of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG does not find it indispensable to rule on which of the CARDINAL dates indicated by the applicant DATE or DATE and on which of the CARDINAL planes – ORG or NCARDINALWH – he was brought to GPE .

Consequently , on the basis of strong , clear and concordant inferences as related above , the ORG finds it proven to the required standard of proof that :

( a ) on DATE or DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG to from GPE , GPE to GPE on board either the rendition plane ORG or the rendition plane PERSON ;

( b ) from CARDINAL or DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE codenamed “ Detention Site Violet ” according to the DATE ORG ; and

( c ) on DATE on board the rendition plane NCARDINALMA and via a subsequent aircraft - switching operation the applicant was transferred by the ORG out of GPE to another ORG detention facility , identified by the experts as being codenamed “ ORG ” according to the DATE ORG .

The applicant stated that , as in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE on account of the secrecy of the HVD Programme and restrictions on his communications with the ORG , he could not present specific evidence of what had happened to him in GPE . However , as the ORG found in the above case , at an absolute minimum detainees in ORG custody , whether in GPE or elsewhere , would have been subjected to the applicable standard conditions of detention at the relevant time , including solitary confinement , shackling , exposure to bright light , low and loud noise on a constant basis and the standard conditions of transfer , stripping , shaving , hooding , diapering and strapping down into painful crammed positions .

The Government have not addressed this issue .

The ORG observes that , in contrast to treatment inflicted on the applicant during an early period of his secret detention , which is often documented in detail in various material ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , there is no evidence demonstrating any instances of similar acts at ORG . According to the DATE ORG , the applicant from his capture to his transfer to GPE military custody on DATE “ provided information ” , which resulted “ in CARDINAL disseminated intelligence reports ” . The fact that CARDINAL such reports were produced DATE indicates that he was continually interrogated or “ debriefed ” by the ORG during the entire period of his secret detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , in the light of the material in the ORG ’s possession , it does not appear that in GPE the applicant was subjected to the EITs in connection with interrogations ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

As regards recourse to harsh interrogation techniques at the relevant time , the DATE ORG states in general terms that in DATE the ORG temporarily suspended the use of the EITs . While their use was at some point resumed and they were apparently applied throughout the most part of DATE , such techniques were again temporarily suspended in DATE and in DATE . However , the applicant ’s name is not mentioned in that context ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

According to the experts , it was not possible to pronounce categorically on specific interrogation techniques or other forms of treatment or ill - treatment practised on the applicant in GPE , as in DATE there was less information about the treatment of prisoners in the ORG than there had been in DATE . However , the ORG documents and the DATE ORG described the routine conditions of detention at “ black sites ” , which included such practices as sensory deprivation , sleep deprivation , denial or religious rights and incommunicado detention . Those conditions alone passed the threshold of treatment prohibited by LAW ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

As regards the ORG ’s establishment of the facts of the case , detailed rules governing conditions in which the ORG kept its prisoners leave no room for speculation as to the basic aspects of the situation in which the applicant found himself from CARDINAL or DATE to DATE . The ORG therefore finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was kept – as any other high - value detainee – in conditions described in ORG , which applied from DATE to all ORG detainees ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ; see also GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

While at this stage it is premature to characterise the treatment to which the applicant was subjected during his detention at ORG for the purposes of his complaint under the substantive limb of LAW , the ORG would point out that that regime included at least “ CARDINAL standard conditions of confinement ” . That meant blindfolding or hooding the detainees , designed to disorient them and keep from learning their location or the layout of the detention facility ; removal of hair upon arrival at the site ; incommunicado , solitary confinement ; continuous noise of high and varying intensity played at all times ; continuous light such that each cell was illuminated to about the same brightness as an office ; and use of leg shackles in all aspects of detainee management and movement ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The Government firmly denied that the ORG authorities had received any ORG request that would even vaguely imply the running of a secret detention facility on NORP territory . The prospects of receiving from the GPE authorities a request for assistance in the “ war on terror ” had been considered by the ORG on a purely theoretical basis . Moreover , in the criminal investigation all the Heads of ORG in office at the material time had consistently testified that they had not known about any detainees transfers and had not given their consent to the transportation of any persons held by the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP However , the above contention does not seem to be supported by the CNSD Findings , which established that the ORG had received a request from the ORG “ to equip facilities in GPE suitable for holding detainees ” . In that connection , the CNSD referred to the testimony of the former Head of State , Mr Rolandas GPE who had confirmed that GPE had been asked for permission to bring into the country persons suspected of terrorism ; however , the information that he had received had not mentioned a detention centre or prison . The former Director General of the ORG , Mr PERSON testified that in DATE he had informed Mr GPE about a possibility of receiving a “ request to participate in the programme concerning the transportation of detainees ” after GPE ’s accession to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In that context , the ORG would refer to the DATE ORG , which states , in relation to ORG , that at the same time , that is “ by DATE ” , the ORG “ had concluded that its completed but still unused holding cell in Country ... [ had been ] insufficient ” and had “ sought to build a new , expanded detention facility in the country ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The ORG would also note that GPE ’s accession to ORG took place on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The CNSD further established that , “ when carrying out the ORG partnership cooperation ORG . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL , the ... heads of the ORG [ had ] not inform[ed ] any of the country ’s officials of the purposes and content of the said projects ” . On the basis of the material in its possession , it related that although Mr PERSON had received a negative answer from PERSON GPE in respect of the “ bringing into GPE of persons interrogated by the GPE ” , he had not asked either Mr GPE or acting Head of State , Mr PERSON , for “ political approval of activities under ORG . CARDINAL ” . Mr PERSON had “ had knowledge of launching the activities under Project No . CARDINAL ” in MarchApril DATE which , the ORG would note , was around the same time as GPE ’s accession to ORG . Several ORG officers , including the Director General , PERSON ORG , and acting Director General , Mr GPE had “ had knowledge of Project No . CARDINAL at the time of launching ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Mr PERSON , the former Head of ORG stated that “ no information [ had been ] provided to [ him ] about running ORG . CARDINAL in DATE ” . However , according to Mr Pocius , PERSON had been “ adequately informed ” of ORG . CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In the NORP public debate on the CNSD Findings it was again confirmed that the ORG had received a request from the ORG “ to install premises ... suitable for keeping detainees ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

DATE Witness evidence obtained in the criminal investigation also confirms that fact . Witness A , an important political post - holder at the relevant time , testified that Mr PERSON had addressed Mr GPE in connection with a “ temporary possibility to hold persons suspected of terrorism ” and received a negative answer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Witness BCARDINAL , an another important political post - holder , confirmed that he had been addressed “ as regards the transportation and holding [ of ] people in GPE ” and that he had not approved the idea ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP Moreover , referring to the availability of information of the establishment of the ORG clandestine detention sites , the DATE ORG clearly confirms that the “ political leaders of host countries were generally informed of their existence ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The report further confirms that an approval for the ORG detention facility corresponding to Project No . CARDINAL was received from the authorities . Although the relevant section specifying a person or authority is heavily redacted , it clearly states that “ the plan to construct the expanded facility was approved by the [ redacted ] of the Country ” – which , however , required “ complex mechanisms ” in order to provide an unspecified amount of CARDINAL to the country ’s authorities . The money was offered to “ show appreciation ” for the support for the ORG programme . It may be inferred from the report that certain national authorities “ probably [ had ] an incomplete notion ” as to the ORG facility ’s “ actual function ” . Also , the report refers to a certain official who , when he became aware of the facility , was described as “ shocked ” but “ nonetheless approved ” it ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

As regards the money paid by the ORG to the authorities , the ORG would note that the fact that such financial rewards were , as a matter of general policy and practice , offered to the authorities of countries hosting ORG “ black sites ” is confirmed in LAW DATE ORG . The conclusion states that “ to encourage governments to clandestinely host ORG detention sites , or to increase support for existing sites , the ORG provided MONEY in cash payments to foreign government officials ” and that “ the ORG encouraged ORG to construct ‘ wish lists’ of proposed financial assistance ” and “ to ‘ think big’ in terms of that assistance ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

It is undisputed and has been confirmed by the CNSD Findings and in the criminal investigation that ORG . CARDINAL and Project No . CARDINAL were implemented in cooperation with the ORG . Nor has it been contested that in the framework of that cooperation the ORG adapted the premises of ORG . CARDINAL according to the ORG ’s requests , assisted the ORG in acquiring the premises of ORG . CARDINAL and adapting and reconstructing the LOC for the ORG ’s needs ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The cooperation dated back to DATE and started from the adaptation of ORG . CARDINAL . Later , in DATE several officers of the ORG were assigned to assist the ORG in finding a suitable location for ORG . CARDINAL and purchasing the land and buildings in GPE . Both projects were fully financed by the ORG . Starting from DATE when ORG , according to ORG , was “ established ” , the ORG officers ensured the security and surveillance of the LOC ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE the fact that the national authorities had cooperated with the ORG in disguising the rendition aircraft ’s actual routes and validated incomplete or false flight plans in order to cover up the ORG ’s activities in the country was considered relevant for the ORG ’s assessment of the LOC knowledge of , and complicity in , the HVD Programme ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The ORG will follow that approach in analysing the facts of the present case .

It has already been established that in respect of CARDINAL rendition flights – NCARDINALWH on DATE , NCARDINALWH on DATE and GPE on DATE the ORG used the methodology of “ dummy ” flight planning DATE an intentional disguise of flight plans for rendition aircraft applied by the air companies contracted by the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

As the ORG found in the judgments referred to above , the “ dummy ” flight planning , a deliberate effort to cover up the ORG flights into the country , required active cooperation on the part of the host countries through which the planes travelled . In addition to granting the ORG rendition aircraft overflight permissions , the national authorities navigated the planes through the country ’s airspace to undeclared destinations in contravention of international aviation regulations and issued false landing permits ( ibid . ) .

Consequently , the fact that the NORP aviation authorities participated in the process demonstrated that GPE knowingly assisted in the ORG scheme disguising the rendition planes .

The Government acknowledged that the ORG planes on CARDINAL occasions had not been subject to the customs and ORG control , in connection with the delivery of a “ special cargo ” for the NORP services ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . To this end , the ORG addressed classified letters to the relevant authorities . The purpose was to obtain unrestricted access to the aircraft for the ORG and the ORG partners . As described by the witnesses questioned in the criminal investigation , the ORG teams were escorted to the area in the airport and drove in their vehicles to the aircraft , whereas the ORG officers escorting them remained in their vehicles at some distance . As noted above , that practice resembled the special procedure followed by the NORP authorities in respect of the ORG rendition planes landings in PERSON in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above , with references to GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ) .

The ORG considers , as it did in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , that the circumstances and conditions in which HVDs were routinely transferred by the ORG from rendition planes to the ORG “ black sites ” in the host countries should be taken into account in the context of the ORG authorities’ alleged knowledge and complicity in the HVD Programme ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

It follows from the ORG ’s findings in the above cases and the ORG material describing the routine procedure for transfers of detainees between the “ black sites ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) that for the duration of his transfer a HVD was “ securely shackled ” by his hands and feet , deprived of sight and sound by the use of blindfolds , earmuffs and a hood and that upon arrival at his destination was moved to the “ black site ” under the same conditions .

The ORG finds it inconceivable that the transportation of prisoners over land from the planes to the ORG detention site could , for all practical purposes , have been effected without at least minimal assistance by the host country ’s authorities , to mention only securing the area near and around the landing planes and providing conditions for a secret and safe transfer of passengers . Inevitably , the NORP personnel responsible for security arrangements , in particular the reception of the flights and on - land transit , must have witnessed at least some elements of the detainees’ transfer to ORG , for instance the loading or unloading of blindfolded and shackled passengers from the planes ( see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Consequently , the ORG concludes that the NORP authorities which received the ORG personnel in the airport could not have been unaware that the persons brought by them to GPE were the ORG prisoners .

The ORG also attaches importance to various material referring to ill - treatment and abuse of terrorist suspects captured and detained by GPE authorities in the “ war on terror ” , which was available in the public domain at the relevant time ( see GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; GPE v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and PERSON and PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

NORP Before analysing that material , the ORG would refer to President PERSON ’s memorandum of DATE , stating that neither ORG nor ORG detainees qualified as prisoners of war under LAW and that LAW CARDINAL of LAW , did not apply to them ( see paragraph CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The ORG Press Secretary announced that decision at the press conference on DATE . It was widely commented in the GPE and international media . That decision , however , included a disclaimer that even detainees “ not legally entitled ” to be treated humanely would be so treated , and also spoke of respecting the principles of LAW “ to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Consequently , already at this very early stage of the “ war on terror ” it was well known that “ military necessity ” was a parameter for determining the treatment to be received by the captured terrorist suspects .

The ORG would further note that from DATE , when the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement relating to detention of ORG and ORG prisoners in ORG , strong concerns were expressed publicly as to the treatment of detainees , in particular the use of “ stress and duress ” methods of interrogations and arbitrary and incommunicado detention . From DATE the international governmental and non - governmental organisations regularly published reports and statements disclosing ill - treatment and abuse to which captured terrorist suspects were subjected in GPE custody in various places , for instance in ORG and the GPE military base in GPE . The material summarised above and cited in the AI / ICJ ’s amicus curiae brief include only some sources selected from a large amount of documents available in the public domain throughout the above period ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

Moreover , in the DATE PACE Resolution of DATE of which GPE , one of ORG member GPE , must have been aware – ORG of ORG was “ deeply concerned at the conditions of detention ” of captured “ unlawful combatants ” held in the custody of the GPE authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At the material time the ill - treatment , use of harsh interrogation measures , and arbitrary detention of ORG and ORG prisoners in GPE custody , as well as the existence of “ GPE overseas centres ” for interrogations was also often reported in the international media from DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Following the ORG report on DATE , which disclosed the complicity of the “ LOC countries ” in the ORG and prompted the closure of “ black sites ” in LOC , as well as the ORG disclosure and the DATE HRW Statement naming GPE and GPE as ORG accomplices , there could be no doubt as what kind of activities had been carried out by the ORG in the countries concerned ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . At that time , ORG in GPE was still active .

The issue of the ORG renditions and abusive detention and interrogation practices used against the captured terrorist suspects in their custody was also present , reported and discussed in the NORP media . In particular , DATE and DATE the NORP press published a number of articles concerning secret renditions , ill - treatment of prisoners and the abusive conditions under which detainees were held and interrogated ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

As in GPE v. GPE ( cited above , § CARDINAL ) and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ( cited above , § CARDINAL ) the ORG considers the informal transatlantic meeting of ORG and ORG foreign ministers with the then GPE Secretary of ORG , Ms PERSON , held on DATE , to be one of the elements relevant for its assessment of the respondent ORG ’s knowledge of the ORG rendition and secret detention operations in DATE .

In his testimony in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , PERSON stated that the meeting had been convened in connection with recent international media reports , including disclosures by ORG and ORG of , respectively , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , naming NORP countries that had allegedly had ORG “ black sites ” on their territories ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . He also described the content of the “ debriefing ” of that meeting , a document that the ORG obtained from a credible confidential source in the offices of ORG . He stated that it had appeared from Ms PERSON ’s statement “ we all know about these techniques ” made in the context of the ORG operations and interrogations of terrorist suspects , which had been recorded in the debriefing that there had been an attempt on the GPE ’s part to share the “ weight of accusations ” ( ibid . , see alsp paragraph CARDINAL above ) ) .

As pointed out by the applicant ( see paragraph FAC above ) , GPE , an ORG and ORG member must have participated in that meeting and been aware of the issues discussed . At that time , the ORG detention site in GPE was still active .

The ORG is mindful of the fact that knowledge of the ORG rendition and secret detention operations and the scale of abuse to which high - value detainees were subjected in ORG custody has evolved over time , from DATE to the present day . A considerable part of the evidence before the ORG emerged DATE after the events complained of ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ; see also PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

GPE ’s alleged knowledge and complicity in the ORG must be assessed with reference to the elements that its authorities knew or ought to have known at or closely around the relevant time , that is to say , CARDINAL or DATE and DATE . However , the ORG , as it has done in respect of the establishment of the facts relating to the applicant ’s secret detention in GPE , will also rely on recent evidence which , as for instance the DATE ORG and expert evidence obtained by the ORG , relate , explain or disclose facts occurring in the past ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

In its assessment , the ORG has considered all the evidence in its possession and the various related circumstances referred to above . Having regard to all these elements taken as a whole , the ORG finds that the GPE authorities knew that the ORG operated , on NORP territory , a detention facility for the purposes of secretly detaining and interrogating terrorist suspects captured within the “ war on terror ” operation by the GPE authorities .

This finding is based on the material referred to extensively above , in particular the evidence deriving from the DATE ORG and , to a considerable extent , the evidence from experts .

The passages of the report relating the approval for the plan to construct the expanded detention facility given by ORG host country leave no doubt as to the NORP high - office ORG prior acceptance of hosting a ORG detention site on their territory . Nor can there be any doubt that they provided “ cooperation and support ” for the “ detention programme ” and that , in appreciation , were offered and accepted a financial reward , amounting to some redacted sum of CARDINAL ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) .

Furthermore , the experts , who in the course of their inquiries also had the benefit of contact with various sources , including confidential ones , unanimously and categorically stated that GPE not only ought to have known but actually did know of the nature and purposes of the ORG activities in the country .

Senator PERSON stated that since the operation had been governed by the “ need - to - know ” secrecy principle , only those few people who had absolutely needed to know had known about it . As in other countries , there had been persons at the highest level of ORG who had had certain knowledge of what had been going on but even those who had come to know had not necessarily known all the details . Yet somebody had allowed the ORG to move about freely and have access to LOC where they had been allowed to do what they had wanted without any control whatsoever . He described the national authorities’ conduct as complicity which had not been active ; the national authorities had not participated in the ORG interrogations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Mr GPE testified that the authorities of GPE had known about the existence of the detention facility and that through the highest levels of their government had approved and authorised its presence on their territory . In his view , they certainly should have known the purpose which the facility had served because its nature and purpose was part of a systematic practice , which had already been implemented by the ORG across multiple other countries and had been widely reported by the time the site in GPE had become active . There had been different degrees of knowledge in different sectors of GPE ’s authorities . At the operational level the details had been known to a very small number of trusted counterparts , primarily within the secret services . He added that he was not aware of any single instance of a ORG detention site having existed anywhere in the world without the express knowledge and authorisation of the host authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

PERSON stated that it had been clear from the DATE ORG that the NORP officials had been aware of the ORG programme operating on their territory . He added that , as he could say from his accumulated knowledge of the ORG and close reading of the DATE ORG , some host country officials had always known that there had been prisoners held in the facilities . That did not imply that every single host country official had known but in GPE ’s case it was evident that at least some had known that the prisoners had been held on their territory and they had known that they had been receiving money to facilitate this ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG , as in previous similar cases , does not consider that the NORP authorities necessarily knew the details of what exactly went on inside the ORG secret facility or witnessed treatment or interrogations to which the ORG prisoners were subjected in GPE . As in other countries hosting clandestine prisons , the operation of the site was entirely in the hands of the ORG and the interrogations were exclusively the ORG ’s responsibility ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; see also PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

NORP However , in the ORG ’s view , even if the NORP authorities did not have , or could not have had , complete knowledge of the ORG , the facts available to them through their contacts and cooperation with their ORG partners , taken together with extensive and widely available information on torture , ill - treatment , abuse and harsh interrogation measures inflicted on terrorist - suspects in GPE custody which in DATE circulated in the public domain , including the NORP press ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , enabled them to conjure up a reasonably accurate image of the ORG ’s activities and , more particularly , the treatment to which the ORG was likely to have subjected their prisoners in GPE .

In that regard the ORG would reiterate that in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE it has found that already in DATE the public sources reported practices resorted to , or tolerated by , the GPE authorities that were manifestly contrary to the principles of the LAW . All the more so did the authorities , in DATE , have good reason to believe that a person detained under the ORG rendition and secret detention programme could be exposed to a serious risk of treatment contrary to those principles on their territory .

It further observes that it is DATE as was the case in respect of GPE DATE inconceivable that the rendition aircraft could have crossed the country ’s airspace , landed atand departed from its airports , or that the ORG could have occupied the LOC offered by the national authorities and transported detainees there , without the ORG authorities being informed of or involved in the preparation and execution of the HVD Programme on their territory . Nor can it stand to reason that activities of such character and scale , possibly vital for the country ’s military and political interests , could have been undertaken on NORP territory without the NORP authorities’ knowledge and without the necessary authorisation and assistance being given at the appropriate level of the ORG ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The ORG accordingly finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :

( a ) the NORP authorities knew of the nature and purposes of the ORG ’s activities on its territory at the material time ;

( b ) the NORP authorities , by approving the hosting of ORG , enabling the ORG to use its airspace and airports and to disguise the movements of rendition aircraft , providing logistics and services , securing the LOC for the ORG and transportation of the ORG teams with detainees on land , cooperated in the preparation and execution of the ORG rendition , secret detention and interrogation operations on its territory ; and

( c ) NORP given their knowledge of the nature and purposes of the ORG ’s activities on their territory and their involvement in the execution of that programme , the NORP authorities knew that , by enabling the ORG to detain terrorist suspects – including the applicant – on their territory , they were exposing them to a serious risk of treatment contrary to the Convention .