Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;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 - Prohibition of torture;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal;Tribunal established by law);Violation of Article 2+P6-1 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Death penalty) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 - Abolition of the death penalty-{general});Violation of Article 3+P6-1 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman punishment;Inhuman treatment) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 - Abolition of the death penalty-{general});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;Florin Streteanu;Iulia Motoc;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 he was allegedly subjected during the extraordinary rendition operations by the United States’ authorities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - 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 GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ; see also PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

As in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , 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 QUANTITY 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 ) .

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

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

“ CARDINAL . The ORG notes that the ORG official documents clearly confirm that by DATE the ORG had the applicant and Mr PERSON , both referred to as ‘ High - Value Detainees’ , in its custody and that they were interrogated at a ORG black site with the use of the EITs – the applicant immediately after his arrival at that place on DATE ... .

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 , was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE from DATE to DATE , that Mr PERSON was also held in the same facility at that time and that they were both moved together to ‘ another ORG black ORG on DATE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) , cited above , § FAC ) . ”

The experts , Mr PERSON and Senator PERSON , heard by ORG at the fact - finding hearing in GPE v. GPE , identified the detention facility as the CARDINAL known under the codename “ Cat ’s Eye ” or “ GPE ” and located in GPE , GPE ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

At “ Cat ’s Eye ” the ORG subjected the applicant to the EITs , including waterboarding from DATE ( ibid . § § DATE ) .

As regards the early period of the applicant ’s detention , the DATE ORG includes the following information . It indicates the date of the applicant ’s capture as “ DATE ” . According to the report , at that time “ he provided information while in custody of a foreign government ” . On an unspecified date – i.e. redacted in the DATE ORG – in DATE he was rendered by the ORG to a secret detention site code - named “ ORG . In GPE v. GPE that site is referred to as being code - named “ GPE ” and located in GPE ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , § § DATE ) . The report states that he was held at that site briefly , for DATE ( redacted in the report ) , before being transferred to another detention site , identified in GPE v. GPE as “ Cat ’s Eye ” in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the DATE ORG that facility is referred to as “ ORG ” . The report further states that :

“ 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 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 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 interrogated by the ORG and subjected to EITs and also to unauthorised interrogation techniques as described in the DATE ORG , DATE ORG and the DATE ORG ;

CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE on the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALP. ”

NORP The events that took place DATE and DATE at the ORG detention facility identified in GPE v. GPE as being code - named “ Quartz ” and located in GPE , including the use of unauthorised interrogation techniques against the applicant , correspond to the events that the DATE ORG relates as occurring at “ ORG ” .

NORP The DATE ORG has established that “ beginning in DATE , the ORG transferred PERSON to CARDINAL different ORG detention facilities before he was transferred to GPE military custody on DATE ” .

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 countries of his secret detention .

ORG . Mr GPE stated that the applicant was transported from GPE first to GPE , second to LOC , third to GPE , then to the fourth site DATE which , according to him , was with a high degree of probability GPE DATE before being transferred to GPE , the fifth “ black site ” and , finally back to LOC .

In particular , Mr GPE testified as follows :

“ ... [ I]n respect of Mr LOC , it is stated explicitly and unredacted in ORG that from DATE PERSON was moved to CARDINAL different detention facilities before his ultimate transfer to LOC in DATE . This provides us with a precise timeframe , DATE , and it provides us with a precise number of transfers which we then have to correlate with his interrogation schedule and the available flight data to determine where he was held . It is on that basis that we have been able to arrive at the conclusion that he was transported from GPE first to GPE , then onwards to LOC , then DATE to GPE , to CARDINAL further site , and with a high degree of probability , GPE , before being transferred back to GPE as no . CARDINAL , and finally to LOC . There are very limited possibilities as to where the ORG could take its detainees because it always maintained a very small range of sites , and because the planes are the same , they operate upon systematic methodologies , notably dummy flight planning , switching of aircraft and all the other tactical elements described . One can narrow down that probability to a certitude , with the right rigour of investigation , and it is that which we have applied to arrive at these conclusions , which have subsequently been validated in the official record . ”

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 v. GPE the ORG established , inter alia , that in the light of the accumulated evidence , “ there [ could ] be no doubt that the NCARDINALP , also known as “ Guantánamo Express ” , a Gulfstream V with capacity for CARDINAL passengers but usually configured for CARDINAL , arrived in PERSON on DATE at TIME from GPE , GPE . It stayed on the runway for TIME and then departed for GPE , GPE ” ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

It was also established that it had been one of the most notorious rendition aircraft used by the ORG for transportation of its prisoners . The plane NCARDINALP set off from FAC , GPE on DATE at TIME and undertook a DATE flight circuit , during which it landed in and departed from CARDINAL different foreign countries including GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . The aircraft returned from GPE back to FAC on DATE ( ibid . § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Mr GPE at the fact - finding hearing testified as follows :

“ As was established in the earlier proceedings , PERSON was taken from GPE to GPE , to the facility near GPE in DATE , arriving there on DATE . And after detention there for a period of DATE , he was then transferred to the ORG secret facility at FAC . The declassified ORG provides extensive detail on the evolution of ORG operations in respect of GPE and LOC , notably in this passage it refers specifically to LOC as having been transferred out of a country which is identifiable as GPE , to the ORG detention facility at FAC , GPE , after a period of DATE beyond the original agreed timeframe . This passage resides within a section of the report which describes difficult and sometimes acrimonious relations between the ORG and its NORP counterparts , and it is evident that , in fact , the date , redacted in this passage , is DATE , which is precisely the time at which our flight information demonstrates an aircraft arriving in GPE and transporting detainees onwards to LOC . ”

According to Mr GPE , the plane NCARDINALP took the applicant , together with another ORG detainee , PERSON , from GPE , GPE to GPE , GPE , to a facility lent to the ORG by their NORP counterparts . He testified as follows :

“ The starting point in assessing PERSON own chronology of secret detention in these proceedings should be GPE , because we have it confirmed , as a matter of judicial fact , that LOC was detained in GPE , having been transported there on the flight of NCARDINALMU from GPE to GPE on DATE . So he found himself in GPE DATE , during which he was subjected to all the documented abuse , the enhanced interrogation techniques and the unauthorised techniques described in the earlier proceedings , into DATE . In the earlier proceedings we presented a range of flights which brought detainees into GPE .

However , the first flight which took detainees out of GPE occurred on CARDINAL and DATE . Based upon , now , the confirmations in ORG , we can see this outward flight from GPE as the starting point of Mr GPE ’s next chronology of detention . It is stated explicitly DATE , from that point DATE , Mr GPE was detained in CARDINAL further sites before ultimately being transferred to ORG in DATE . The flight on DATE took Mr GPE , together with another ORG detainee , PERSON , to GPE , GPE . GPE , GPE , at that time was a facility lent to the ORG , to ORG , by their NORP counterparts . It was a facility which resided within the NORP system , and it is described in explicit detail in ORG . That facility was the same place to which some persons from ORG would be later taken back , but I will explain why Mr PERSON was not one of those , with reference to the same material . In DATE , according to the report , it was allowed to operate until DATE , at which point relations became acrimonious and certain conditions were placed upon it . The ORG collected its detainees who were housed there , which included Mr PERSON , on DATE in the rendition circuit I demonstrated . That is the date confirmed from the ORG ’s own reporting , and the flight confirmed through our investigations , the rendition circuit I demonstrated . So we are now taking Mr GPE from GPE to GPE as number CARDINAL , ORG as number CARDINAL . ”

The DATE ORG section entitled “ Country [ name redacted ] ORG on the ORG ’s Behalf ” , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Consideration of a detention facility in Country [ name blackened ] began in DATE blackened ] DATE , when the ORG sought to transfer PERSON from the custody of a foreign government to ORG custody [ blackened ] which had not yet informed the ORG political leadership of the ORG ’s request to establish a clandestine detention facility in Country [ blackened ] , surveyed potential sites for the facility , while the ORG set aside [ ORG ] [ number blackened ] CARDINAL for its construction .

In DATE , the ORG arranged for a ‘ temporary ORG involving placing CARDINAL ORG detainees ( PERSON and PERSON ) within an already existing Country [ blackened ] detention facility , until the ORG ’s own facility could be built .

By DATE blackened ] DATE , after an extension of DATE beyond the originally agreed upon timeframe for concluding ORG detention activities in Country [ blackened ] , both PERSON and PERSON had been transferred out of Country [ blackened]| to the ORG detention facility at FAC , GPE . ”

According to Mr J.G.S , on DATE the applicant was transported from Rabat to LOC on the plane ORG

Mr GPE , in the course of the above mentioned ORG presentation at the fact - finding hearing ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) , gave the following details concerning NCARDINALP ’s circuit of CARDINAL DATE :

“ Having departed from GPE , this aircraft , ... NCARDINALP , flew to GPE in GPE for a stopover before heading eastward to GPE , GPE , where dissident detainees , handed over to the ORG by local intelligence services , were rendered to secret detention in GPE .

From GPE , on DATE , the aircraft transported several detainees out of detention in GPE towards detention in LOC . The first stop in LOC was the detention site at PERSON , in northern GPE , which was explicitly described in the [ LOC v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ] proceedings , and this circuit is unprecedented and indeed unique because it is the only occasion on which a rendition flight carrying ORG detainees left CARDINAL NORP site and flew directly to another NORP detention site , in this case in GPE , GPE . ...

From GPE , the rendition plane carried further detainees out to LOC . These were persons who had boarded on earlier legs , not persons leaving GPE , and from GPE to LOC , where for DATE , in DATE and DATE , the ORG operated a secret detention facility apart from the larger military facility at FAC . ”

As established in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , the plane NCARDINALP landed in GPE , GPE on DATE en route from GPE , GPE . On DATE Mr PERSON was transferred by the ORG from GPE on board that plane .

The plane set off from FAC in GPE , GPE on DATE at TIME and undertook a DATE flight circuit , during which it landed in and departed from CARDINAL different foreign countries , as well as FAC at LOC .

These CARDINAL countries , in the order in which the aircraft landed there , were : GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , and GPE . The aircraft flew from GPE , GPE to LOC on TIME DATE , landing there in the morning of DATE .

In GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ( see § CARDINAL ) Mr GPE gave the following account of the “ final rendition circuit ” through GPE executed by the NCARDINALP plane , a ORG CARDINAL , on DATE :

“ CARDINAL flight circuit however is of particular significance and this is the final part of our presentation in which we would like to discuss how the detention operations in GPE were brought to an end .

In DATE the ORG rendition and detention programme underwent another overhaul analogous to the one which had taken place in DATE when Mr GPE and PERSON were transferred from GPE to GPE . On this occasion , the ORG executed a rendition circuit which entailed visiting CARDINAL secret detention sites at which ORG detainees were held . These included , in sequence , PERSON in GPE , GPE in GPE , GPE in GPE and LOC , a secret ORG compartment of LOC , having initially commenced in GPE , GPE . On this particular flight route , it has been found that all of the detainees who remained in GPE at that date were transferred out of GPE and deposited into the successive detention facilities at the onward destinations : GPE , Rabat and ORG . Among those persons was one of the applicants DATE , PERSON , who was taken on that date from GPE to LOC . This particular flight circuit was again disguised by dummy flight planning although significantly not in respect of GPE . It was the sole official declaration of PERSON as a destination in the course of all the ORG ’s flights into GPE . The reason therefor being that no detainee was being dropped off in GPE on the night of CARDINAL DATE and the methodology of disguising flight planning pertained primarily to those renditions which dropped a detainee off at the destination . Since this visit to PERSON was comprised solely of a pick - up of the remaining detainees , the ORG declared PERSON as a destination openly and instead disguised its onward destinations of GPE and PERSON , hence demonstrating that the methodology of disguised flight planning continued for the second NORP site in GPE , GPE and indeed for other detention sites situated elsewhere in the world . ”

ORG ( Autoritatea Aeronautică Civilă Română – “ ORG ” ) , in its letter of CARDINAL DATE ( “ ORG letter ” ) stated that NCARDINALP ’s itinerary was : FAC ( which is located in GPE , GPE ) FAC but the airport in GPE at which it landed was FAC in GPE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The DATE ORG , in the section entitled “ GPE ORG in the case of PERSON v. PERSON Forces transfer of ORG detainees from ORG to ORG [ name blackened ] ” ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) , states :

“ Beginning in DATE , the ORG held a number of detainees at ORG facilities on the grounds of , but separate from , the GPE military detention facilities at LOC , GPE . In DATE , the ORG and ORG began discussing the possibility that a pending ORG case PERSON v. PERSON , might grant habeas corpus rights to the CARDINAL ORG detainees then being held at a ORG detention facility at FAC . Shortly after these discussions , ORG officers approached the [ REDACTED ] in Country [ REDACTED ] to determine if it would again be willing to host these ORG detainees , who would remain in ORG custody within an already existing Country [ REDACTED ] facility . By DATE [ day REDACTED ] DATE , the [ REDACTED ] in Country [ REDACTED ] had agreed to this arrangement for a limited period of time .

Meanwhile , ORG General Counsel PERSON asked ORG , ORG , and ORG for advice on whether the CARDINAL ORG detainees being held at FAC should remain in LOC or be moved pending ORG decision . After consultation with the GPE solicitor general in DATE , ORG recommended that the ORG move CARDINAL detainees out of a ORG detention facility at FAC pending ORG resolution of the case . ORG concluded that a fifth detainee , PERSON , did not need to be transferred because he had originally been detained under military authority and had been declared to the ICRC . Nonetheless , by DATE [ redacted CARDINAL - digit number ] DATE , all CARDINAL ORG detainees were transferred from LOC to other ORG detention facilities . ”

In his application lodged on DATE the applicant submitted that sometime between DATE and DATE GPE had hosted a secret ORG prison , codenamed “ FAC ” and located in GPE . The applicant ’s rendition and secret detention were related as follows :

“ Mr PERSON was captured in GPE in GPE in DATE . By DATE , he had been secretly transferred to the custody of the ORG . He was held in various secret locations before being detained in GPE . GPE agents first took him to a secret ORG prison in GPE known as the ‘ GPE Pit’ . In GPE , interrogators subjected him to ‘ prolonged stress standing ORG , during which his wrists were ‘ shackled to a bar or hook in the ceiling above the head’ for ‘ CARDINAL GPE . GPE agents then took him to another secret ORG prison in GPE , where he remained until DATE . According to ORG , on DATE , the ORG transported Mr PERSON on a chartered flight with tail number NCARDINALMU from GPE to a secret ORG detention site in GPE . On or DATE , NORP authorities assisted the ORG in secretly transferring Mr. PERSON from GPE . ...

After his transfer out of GPE , DATE and DATE Mr Al Nashiri was held in various secret detention facilities abroad , including a ORG prison in GPE , GPE . He was transferred to LOC by DATE . ”

As for the possible date of his rendition to GPE during the period DATE and DATE the applicant mentioned DATE , i.e. the date on which the aircraft NCARDINALP executed its “ final rendition circuit ” through GPE , via GPE and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In that regard , he referred to the DATE ORG ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , which had identified NCARDINALP as a “ rendition plane ” and which , according to the flight plans of CARDINAL DATE and the NORP officials , had had as its destination GPE and GPE .

NORP In further observations filed by the applicant ’s representatives on DATE , it was stated that he had been transferred to a ORG “ black site ” in GPE on the plane NCARDINALVM from LOC to GPE on DATE . It was explained that that fact had emerged from a dossier submitted by PERSON , the former ORG Commissioner for Human Rights , to ORG ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The dossier and new information about the applicant ’s transfers in ORG custody had not been publicly available earlier .

The above - mentioned dossier produced by Mr PERSON states that on DATE the applicant was transferred to the ORG “ black site ” in GPE on the NCARDINALVM flight from LOC to GPE . It further states that NCARDINALVM landed at TIME DATE and was assessed to have been bringing in ORG detainee(s ) from FAC , LOC via a technical stopover in GPE , with a false – “ dummy ” – flight plan filed featuring NORP instead of its real destination , which was GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

ORG submitted a set of CARDINAL documents originating from ORG ( “ RAS ” ) at ORG , described as “ annex no . CARDINAL ” to the DATE ORG ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which were examined in the course of the Parliamentary inquiry in GPE . They initially asked that that the annex be treated as confidential . At the fact - finding hearing , the Government submitted that they no longer wished the ORG to maintain its confidentiality ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The first document , invoice no . CARDINAL dated DATE , was issued by the handling agent of the PERSON for ORG and indicated an amount charged of MONEY ( ORG ) due for ground services ( basic handling , landing fee , lighting fee and navigation services ) relating to the NCARDINALVM landing .

The second document , ground handling note no . CARDINAL dated DATE indicated the same amount .

The third document was a copy of an ORG card issued for ORG .

The fourth document , air navigation services sheet no . CARDINAL dated DATE included navigation services charges . It indicated that NCARDINALVM landed at FAC at CARDINALhCARDINAL m on DATE and departed at QUANTITY on DATE .

The fifth document was a partly illegible table containing landing fees for several planes , including NCARDINALVM .

The sixth document DATE a control list of navigation records indicated , among other things , the NCARDINALVM landing on DATE at QUANTITY .

In the course of the ORG presentation Mr GPE testified as follows :

“ ... [ T]he transfer date of GPE to GPE was DATE . Our investigations have provided evidence that this transfer took place directly from LOC to the ‘ black ORG in GPE , GPE . Again , the [ GPE ] ORG , albeit using code names , coloured code names for the sites in question , describes explicitly where particular detainees were at particular times , and in this passage highlighted , in describing the closure of the LOC facility in the face of probable exposure due to a ORG assessment of the legality of their detention , it states that ‘ by DATE in DATE , all CARDINAL ORG detainees were transferred from LOC to other ORG detention GPE . The use of ‘ FAC here in the plural is very important , because the principal destination for those held by the ORG at ORG was in fact back to the facility in GPE from whence they had come . However , as the ORG inquiry made clear , not all of those held at ORG went back to GPE , and indeed the date cited here , DATE , coincides with the flight of NCARDINALVM aircraft from FAC to ORG , GPE , in GPE . This is the flight circuit , again it is backed up by a tranche of documentary evidence which I am prepared to provide to the ORG , and in particular this graphic demonstrates that there were CARDINAL distinct transfers out of FAC . The first on DATE carried detainees from ORG back to GPE , GPE . The second of these , which is of our principal interest , transported CARDINAL or more detainees , among them LOC , via a stopover in GPE onto GPE .

I have put together a graphic to illustrate that , once again , the ORG had recourse to its systematic practice of disguised flight planning in respect of this flight . We reached a point in our investigations , Madam President , where evidence of dummy flight planning in fact became a tell - tale sign of rendition or detainee transfer activity on such flights . So it is significant , as I will demonstrate , that this was not a simple circuit . The aircraft embarked from GPE and flew to LOC , whereupon the blue line demonstrates the first part of the detainee transfer from ORG to GPE , a flight planned and executed . From GPE , however , the aviation services provider , in this case ORG from GPE , GPE , filed a dummy flight plan to the alternative NORP destination of GPE , on LOC . The aircraft , however , flew and landed at FAC , as documentation from the NORP authorities demonstrates . It is this flight , depicted here with the blue line , that carried LOC to detention in GPE . From GPE , the aircraft flew back to GPE , GPE , and it is apparent premise that CARDINAL or more detainees from the NORP site , detained prior to DATE , was at that point taken from GPE back to detention in GPE , after which the aircraft returned to its base at GPE

We have been able to uncover this and other flights planned through the network of private contractors , thanks to a large amount of documentation filed in court proceedings in civil courts in GPE , whereupon several GPE aviation service providers , contracted to the ORG , ended up in a financial dispute . The case in question , ORG against [ sic ] ORG , in fact concerns the ORG ’s chief aviation contractor , ORG , formerly ORG , its use of a prime aviation contractor known as ORG , previously ORG , which in turn subcontracted its government mandates to a private company called ORG , who were the owners and operators of the aircraft NCARDINALVM .

I appreciate that this web of corporate relations is quite difficult to understand on its face , but over DATE , myself and other investigators have carefully unpicked these relationships to provide the direct link between the tasking of ORG on government contracts through the ORG ’s rendition group air branch , all the way down to the pilots , crew members and operators of the aircraft in question . It is unambiguously and categorically the case that these are rendition aircraft , operated for the sole purpose of transferring detainees between ‘ black sites’ in the ORG ’s ORG programme . The flight of NCARDINALVM , on the dates in question , belongs in that category . ”

As regards the circumstances surrounding the applicant ’s transfer from ORG to GPE , Mr GPE testified at the fact - finding hearing as follows :

“ The ORG site operated only for a finite period . As I mentioned , it was due to the judicial scrutiny of ORG with a case pending in PERSON v. PERSON , which was likely to expose ORG detainees to the same reporting obligations , but also the same rights , that detainees in other forms of federal custody would enjoy , and so the ORG deliberately took action to remove its detainees from such scrutiny in advance of the ORG ruling . ORG describes this process , based upon cables and other classified material , and states that by DATE , the date I assert , DATE , all of those detainees who were held in ORG were moved out .

There were CARDINAL flights , as I demonstrated , which formed part of this removal process , the first on DATE , the second on DATE . But the first of those only went to GPE , GPE , and if you recall , the ORG described , based upon its assessment of interrogation schedules , that Mr Nashiri had been to CARDINAL different sites in that CARDINAL timeframe , and in order for him to be in CARDINAL different sites , he , at that moment , could not have gone back to GPE , because there are not sufficient documented instances of rendition which link the territories in question , ORG , GPE and GPE , in the timeframe in which the report confirms PERSON GPE ’s tour of the sites .

The DATE site was the sole outward flight linking ORG to GPE . From the report , from the cables regarding Mr GPE treatment and physical and psychological state , we know that he found himself in GPE in DATE , and in DATE , there were specific notes made upon his state and status in those date frames . In order for him to have been in GPE at ORG or ‘ Britelite’ by that time , he had to be brought to GPE on flight NCARDINALVM on DATE .

It is a process of elimination , but it is also a process of correlation , which very clearly links to documents filed by contractors , corresponds with the international aviation data that we have analysed , corresponds with the tactics of dummy flight planning and disguise , and ultimately is validated in the public record by ORG . ”

Mr Black , referring to the applicant ’s alleged rendition to GPE testified as follows :

“ I am aware of CARDINAL possible flights that could have taken the applicant LOC into GPE , that [ a flight with the tail number NCARDINALVM ] , is CARDINAL of them . There is a potential other one that occurred in DATE . We know for a fact that he was in GPE after DATE , we know from cables referenced in ORG that he was in GPE in DATE . There are indications that he was held in GPE before that , in DATE , which leads me , of the CARDINAL possibilities , that leads me to prefer the DATE flight as being the more likely of the CARDINAL . In terms of my own research , I would say that there is a small ambiguity on that point , I am not prepared to say that the data I have at my fingertips conclusively demonstrates that he was taken on the DATE flight in DATE rather than the February one in DATE . I think the balance of probability does lie in favour of that . However , whichever of the CARDINAL it is , there is no doubt that he was in GPE by DATE . ”

NORP The applicant submitted that throughout his detention by the ORG he had been subjected to torture and other forms of ill - treatment prohibited by LAW .

On DATE the GPE authorities disclosed to the public a second , less redacted version of the transcript of the hearing held by ORG in ORG on DATE ( for the first , more extensively redacted version see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . During that hearing the applicant described the treatment to which he had been subjected in ORG custody from his capture in DATE to his transfer to ORG in DATE . The relevant part of that transcript read , as follows :

“ From the time I was arrested DATE , they have been torturing me . It happened during interviews . CARDINAL time they tortured me CARDINAL way and another time they tortured me in a different way .

By hanging , head was up and legs were pointing downwards . I was hung for DATE . You doing your things basically and you were hung upside down and drowning and hitting at the wall . There are many scars on my head if I shave my head . If I shave my hair the scars will become obvious .

What else do I want to say ? I was without clothes . I was sleeping on the floor for DATE . Many things happened . There were doing so many things . What else did they did ?

There a box QUANTITY . It was QUANTITY in height They used to put me inside the box . I was standing in that box for DATE and I could n’t do anything . My feet were swollen . My nails were about fall off because , I was standing on my feet for long time . They do so many things . So so many things . What else did they did ?

That thing lasted for QUANTITY ] . After that another method of torture began . They use to put something in the food that use to make the body tired . Before I was arrested I used to be able to run QUANTITY . Now , I can not walk for TIME . My nerves are swollen in my body . Swollen too . They used to ask me questions and the investigator after that used to laugh . And , I used to answer the answer that I knew . And , if I did n’t reply what I heard , he used to put something in my food . And , after I ate it my body felt like , um , strange . After that he used to come back and talk to me . He told you he put anything in the food . He used to deny that but the camera was behind him . And ; I would stand in front of the camera and he used to tell you that because camera was on . He could not deny anything . You have to acknowledge to what we are saying . And , I used to say acknowledge what ? They used to ask even political questions . CARDINAL is the solution to the NORP problem in GPE . I ’m not the NORP Foreign Minister to answer these questions . So they used to go and put some stuff in my food . These things happen for DATE . That thing did not stop until here . So many things happened . I do n’t in summary , that ’s basically what happened .

Then , the President of ORG says :

Alright . Let me ask . So then since the time of capture DATE until you came to ORG you experienced these types of events ?

The applicant responds :

Yes . ”

At the fact - finding hearing PERSON made the following statements concerning the treatment to which the applicant could be subjected during his alleged detention in GPE :

“ I find myself somewhat more limited in my ability to describe specific forms of treatment or interrogation techniques to which Mr PERSON was subjected in GPE than was the case in respect of GPE . And that is because of the natural evolution of the detention cycles to which ORG detainees were subjected . In pursuit of what was described as ‘ live actionable intelligence’ , the ORG developed its most stringent , harsh interrogation plans for DATE and DATE of a detainee ’s period in its detention system . Usually , within DATE of being apprehended , the chief of base at the ‘ black ORG in question would appeal to ORG headquarters for authorisation to practise EITs , so called ‘ enhanced interrogation GPE . This was the case in respect of PERSON , this was the case in respect of PERSON , this was the case in respect of PERSON , this we know because of ORG reports . As soon as a detainee was in custody , in PERSON case , was fit enough to undergo interrogation , that plan would commence . We know that PERSON underwent DATE of harsh interrogation in GPE including the waterboard , and we know that upon transfer to GPE , because he was assessed as having withheld information or not been compliant , he was then subjected to an intensive period of harsh interrogation during with multiple , unauthorised techniques were used . Those were documented in the earlier proceedings [ GPE v. GPE ] . But there arrives a juncture in a ORG detainee ’s detention at which his intelligence value is assessed as lower , at which no further approval or authorisation is sought or granted to practise these enhanced interrogation techniques , and in GPE case we can only say that that point arrived sometime in DATE . Thereafter , it is , in my assessment and according to the documentary record , unlikely that the ORG practised further unauthorised techniques or indeed concerted programmes of enhanced interrogation on PERSON .

However , that is not to say that he was not subjected to abuse or indeed that the conditions of his confinement did not amount to violations of LAW . In respect of those CARDINAL latter points , I would aver quite clearly that the treatment did amount to violations of the LAW , purely by virtue of the conditions in which he was held and because of the regular interventions made by persons at the ‘ black ORG to gratuitously abuse , punitively or otherwise , certain detainees in their custody . I can give you analogous examples of how detainees were treated in GPE . PERSON , for example : there is a lengthy description of his having endured TIME of sleep deprivation , having been shaved and barbered , stripped naked , placed in standing positions with his hands above his head . There are descriptions of how , notwithstanding medical and psychological problems diagnosed by professionals at the scene , he was subjected to further interrogation to the point of enduring hallucinations . I could also cite the example of PERSON , a detainee for whom the ORG sought authorisation to use the waterboard in GPE , an unprecedented move , and who was subsequently subjected to an intensive period of enhanced interrogation in the same site at which LOC was held . I could also cite the case of PERSON who was captured in DATE and even at that point , DATE and more into the programme , was subjected to the same litany of abusive techniques in interrogating him as LOC and others had been subjected to in DATE and DATE . And I could also cite , too , some memoranda produced by the ORG General Counsel ’s office in the material period in which PERSON was held in GPE , which described conditions of confinement , sensory deprivation as a matter of routine , denial of religious rights , physical and psychological oppression , sleep deprivation as a matter of course , notwithstanding whether a detainee is subject at that time , or not , to EITs .

So whilst I can not give the same level of specificity as I was able to present in respect of GPE , I can aver with a high level of certainty that he endured ill - treatment whilst held in GPE because , in my view , every one of those detainees brought to GPE , held incommunicado , indefinitely , with no idea of their whereabouts or their fate , subjected to frequent renditions , shackled , drugged , often beaten in the process , every one of those persons would have a legitimate claim under our NORP Convention on Human Rights for violation of their personal integrity . ”

Mr Black testified as follows :

“ The question of precise types of treatment is , I would not say it is my specific expertise . It is clear from ORG and other sources that treatment in GPE included very extreme sleep deprivation , which apparently led some of those who suffered it to have very severe mental and physical problems , and it is clear also that the applicant , Mr GPE , in particular when he was in GPE , was experiencing serious , let ’s say , psychological problems as a result of the treatment that he had received . But my , and I should say also it is clear that around that time , DATE , it is firmly on the record that there were a range of treatments being applied to these people , that the enhanced interrogation techniques were being applied , I think this has all been quite well documented , but it is not really my topic of expertise , I would not say . ”

Citing as a source CARDINAL ORG cables of CARDINAL May CARDINAL , the DATE ORG states that “ at CARDINAL point PERSON launched a short - lived hunger strike that resulted in the ORG feeding him rectally ” ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Referring to an email to ORG dated DATE on the subject “ ORG for Endgame Views ” , the report states that “ an DATE psychological assessment of PERSON was used by the ORG to advance its discussions with ORG officials on establishing an “ endgame ” for the [ ORG ] program ”

The DATE ORG further refers to the applicant ’s detention at ORG in DATE and DATE as follows :

“ In DATE of LOC detention , most of the intelligence requirements for PERSON involved showing PERSON photographs . In DATE , the DETENTION SITE BLACK chief of Base suspended even these debriefings because it was ‘ the very , very rare ORG that LOC would recognize a photograph , and because the debriefings often were the ‘ ORG for his outbursts . ”

It also states , with reference to a cable of DATE , that in DATE ORG expressed concern regarding PERSON “ continued state of depression and uncooperative attitude ” . DATE a ORG psychologist assessed that the applicant was on the “ verge of a breakdown ” ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In his initial submissions the applicant submitted that no later than CARDINAL September CARDINAL the NORP authorities had assisted the ORG in secretly transferring him from GPE to another ORG “ black site ” .

The experts gave CARDINAL possible dates for the applicant ’s rendition from GPE : DATE and DATE . According to them , the latter date was the final closure of the ORG “ black site ” on GPE ’s territory , prompted by the publication of PERSON article “ ORG Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons ” suggesting that such prisons operated in LOC countries on DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In the course of the ORG presentation Mr GPE testified as follows :

“ In terms of [ FAC in GPE ’s ] closure , it is stated in the [ DATE ORG ] that after the publication of ORG article , that is the piece of reporting , the Pulitzer Prize - winning article by PERSON , ... dated DATE , the authorities of this country demanded the closure of ORG within TIME CARDINAL . We can see that from the redaction , it does not state exactly how many hours , but it is DATE . And in fact , as I described , CARDINAL DATE , using its practices of dummy flight planning and a further disguise which I will demonstrate shortly , the ORG transferred all of its remaining ORG detainees out of the facility within this time period . Again , as stated , flights into and out of GPE correspond exactly with the narrative described in the report .

It might be pointed out , in relation to this specific package , that in order for the authorities of the host country to demand the closure of a detention facility , they must have known of its existence . Furthermore , in light of the report in ORG , which went into intimate detail of the ORG ’s operations including the forms of ill - treatment and interrogation to which detainees therein were subjected , it follows that the authorities of the host country of ORG and let me be clear – that is the authorities of GPE , must have known of the nature of operations occurring on their territory .

The question has often been posed to us , Honourable Judges , if there were detainees in GPE , how did they leave ? There appeared to be no obvious direct flights out of GPE in the critical period , DATE , to any other detention site we were aware of , and this was often put forward by representatives of the NORP authorities as a reason for decrying , for rejecting , for refuting the content of our reporting [ i.e. at the time of the publication of the DATE and the DATE ORG ] .

We have , however , now ascertained how detainees were removed from GPE , and this occurred in CARDINAL tranches in DATE and , as stated , DATE . I have chosen to illustrate the first of these transfers , which occurred CARDINAL of DATE , because it provides a further segue into detention operations on the territory of ORG , in this case GPE .

The ORG used CARDINAL tactics of deceit in order to provide these flights with the maximum degree of cover , in order that they could not and would not be tracked , traced or held to account . The first of those was its conventional dummy flight planning , but the second of those was a novel tactic involving switching of aircraft . This graphic will demonstrate how this was deployed on CARDINAL and DATE , involving CARDINAL aircraft , namely PERSON and PERSON . The first of those aircraft is depicted by red lines , the second by blue , on the graphic , the other symbols follow the earlier pattern of drop - off , transfer and stopover points . The CARDINAL planes arrived in LOC , the first [ NCARDINALAB ] from provenance of ORG , GPE , the second [ NCARDINALWH ] from provenance of ORG in GPE on DATE . While the first flew to GPE , in GPE , the second flew directly to GPE , GPE , which would become the staging point for these operations . The first dummy flight plan , filed by the ORG ’s aviation services provider , stated a path for PERSON from GPE to GPE airport , a route which it did not , nor did it intend , to fly . The aircraft instead flew directly to GPE airport , the servicing airport for the ‘ black ORG in GPE , whereupon it would collect detainees . Those detainees referred to in ORG who were cleared from GPE in these critical DATE were then taken from GPE to GPE , to the staging point where the other ORG aircraft had been waiting for DATE in advance . In this staging point , in an unprecedented manoeuvre , according to our investigations , detainees were transferred from the first aircraft onto the second , together with members of the ORG rendition crew . The second aircraft , PERSON , which is also a ORG CARDINAL business jet , used conventionally for wholesale transfers filed its own dummy flight plan , citing a destination of GPE , GPE , a route which it did not , nor did it intend , to fly . Instead , this aircraft NCARDINALWH flew on DATE carrying detainees from GPE to GPE , GPE , thereby providing a link CARDINAL detention sites on NORP territory . The aircraft then departed in their own respective directions , the rendition aircraft NCARDINALWH via GPE , towards the north , and the first aircraft , PERSON from GPE , via FAC , back towards GPE . Therein the ORG had innovated yet another means , another layer of cover to obstruct proper accounting for the illegal transfer of its detainees , but due to a process which Senator PERSON referred to as ‘ la dynamique de la vérité’ , we have been able , methodically and carefully , to unpick these layers of secrecy and present to this ORG what we believe is a truthful and accurate accounting of operations in respect of these ‘ black sites’ . ”

In his further testimony , in response to questions from the ORG , Mr GPE added :

“ There are CARDINAL known and documented junctures at which ORG detainees at the ‘ black ORG in GPE were removed from GPE . The first of those , I illustrated with my last set of graphics , on CARDINAL and DATE , which took detainees from GPE , GPE via switching of aircraft in GPE , to GPE , GPE . The second took place on DATE , within DATE of ORG report , and at the insistence of the NORP authorities , which took detainees via GPE , GPE to GPE , GPE . We know that at DATE there were CARDINAL ORG detention sites in active operation , that much is stated in ORG . Those were the sites known as ‘ PERSON and ‘ PERSON : the former , ‘ Violet’ , in GPE , the latter , ‘ PERSON , in GPE . And so PERSON , in all likelihood and without any other information to refer to , was taken to one of those QUANTITY destinations on CARDINAL of those CARDINAL flights . Based upon my earlier rationale about the CARDINAL different facilities in which he was held , I would aver that it is more likely than not that he was taken from GPE to GPE on CARDINAL and DATE and was held there until DATE transfer in DATE to GPE and subsequently on to LOC . That would , logically , complete the number and nature of detention experiences chronicled in ORG and other documents released by GPE . ”

Mr Black testified as follows :

“ ... [ T]here are CARDINAL possibilities , and I believe CARDINAL possibilities : CARDINAL is that [ the applicant ] left [ GPE ] in DATE , on DATE , and the other is that he left on DATE . If the flight on DATE was a dual flight , it was a kind of a CARDINAL - plane switch that took prisoners from GPE into GPE , and the flight DATE in DATE was again a CARDINAL - plane switch that took prisoners from GPE into GPE . I think there is an indication in the data that we have , based on ORG , that Mr PERSON was taken to GPE , which should mean he was taken in DATE rather than DATE , but it is , I would not say it is MONEY clear , unambiguous . I would say it is an indication that seems probable . There is no doubt that the flight in DATE signalled the end of the NORP site , I mean it came , I do not know , TIME after the existence of the site had been revealed in ORG , the government had demanded the site shut down , ORG is very clear that at that point everyone who was remaining in GPE was shipped out to GPE , so at that point , after DATE , the ORG ‘ black ORG programme was operating only in GPE and in GPE . ”

The relevant section in the DATE ORG reads as follows :

“ After publication of ORG article , [ REDACTED ] Country [ REDACTED ] demanded closure of DETENTION SITE BLACK within [ CARDINAL - digit number REDACTED ] TIME . The ORG transferred the [ number REDACTED ] remaining ORG detainees out of the facility shortly thereafter . ”

According to public ORG flight data based on , among other things , the flight data entered by the NORP authorities into the ORG system , which was referred to by Mr J.G.S and PERSON , the flight circuit of DATE involving planes PERSON and PERSON and the circuit of DATE involving planes NCARDINALHC and LAW can be described as follows .

As regards the circuit of DATE , executed by planes PERSON and PERSON :

( a ) ORG data shows NCARDINALAB filing a flight plan departing from GPE , GPE at CARDINAL on DATE with scheduled arrival time at GPE , GPE at DATE . On DATE it filed a flight plan departing from GPE at CARDINAL with scheduled arrival time at FAC , GPE , GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL . It then filed a plan departing TIME later , at CARDINAL:CARDINAL , from FAC . According to the experts , this indicated that the scheduled trip to GPE was in fact a false flight plan , and that the plane did not go to GPE , but rather to PERSON . Leaving PERSON it was scheduled to arrive in GPE , GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL . It filed its next flight plan from GPE on DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL , with a scheduled arrival time in FAC , GPE , at TIME ( all times are PERSON ( i.e. ORG ) ) .

( b ) ORG data shows that on DATE at TIME PERSON filed a flight plan departing from GPE , GPE with scheduled arrival in FAC on DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL . It then filed a flight plan departing GPE at CARDINAL with scheduled arrival at GPE , GPE DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL . It then filed a flight plan leaving TIME , at TIME , not from GPE but from FAC , GPE , with scheduled arrival in GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL ( all times are PERSON ( GMT ) ) . Documents from GPE airport show that the plane landed in GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL PERSON / CARDINAL:CARDINAL local time , however , indicating that the scheduled trip to GPE was in fact a false flight plan , and that the plane did not go to GPE , but rather directly from GPE to GPE ( see also PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

As regards the circuit of DATE , executed by planes NCARDINALHC and NCARDINALAB :

( a ) ORG data shows that NCARDINALHC filed a flight plan to leave FAC , GPE at TIME on DATE , with scheduled arrival in GPE , GPE at DATE . It then filed a flight plan to leave GPE at DATE , with scheduled arrival at FAC , GPE , GPE at CARDINAL . Its next flight plan shows it leaving GPE Airport TIME , at CARDINAL , with scheduled arrival at GPE , GPE TIME at TIME on DATE . This , according to the experts , indicated that the scheduled trip to GPE was in fact a false flight plan , and that the plane did not go to GPE , but rather to PERSON . From GPE it filed a flight plan to depart GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL with arrival at ORG scheduled at TIME .

( b ) ORG data shows that NCARDINALAB filed a flight plan to leave FAC on DATE at TIME with scheduled arrival in GPE at CARDINAL . It then filed a flight plan to leave GPE TIME , at DATE on DATE , with arrival in GPE scheduled for CARDINAL:CARDINAL . It filed a flight plan to leave GPE TIME , at TIME , with arrival in GPE scheduled at CARDINAL DATE .

The findings of ORG ) made in the course of an inquiry concerning the alleged detention facilities in GPE in DATE concerned , among other things , the flight NCARDINALWH landing in GPE , en route from GPE , on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below )

NORP The list of CARDINAL flights operated in DATE at the airports of GPE , ORG submitted by ORG ( annex no . CARDINAL to the DATE ORG ; see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) included that of NCARDINALHC , which departed from Băneasa airport on CARDINAL DATE .

NORP The list of CARDINAL “ suspicious flights ” , which was produced by the Government , included NCARDINALHC executing a circuit “ GPE –București GPE - GPE ” that departed from FAC on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The invoice ( no . DATE ) for ORG in respect of NCARDINALHC issued by ORG on DATE included a handwritten note : “ FAC ( ? ) ( GPE ? ) ”

According the DATE ORG , in “ DATE ” the ORG was holding CARDINAL detainees “ in its CARDINAL remaining facilities , ORG , in Country [ name REDACTED ] and ORG , in Country [ name REDACTED ] ” .

The applicant , according to the experts , was taken to CARDINAL of those sites – Detention Site Violet located in GPE or Detention Site Orange located in GPE on CARDINAL of the above - described plane - switching flights circuits of , respectively , DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The DATE ORG states that the applicant “ was transferred to GPE military custody on DATE . ”

On DATE President PERSON publicly acknowledged that CARDINAL high - value detainees , including the applicant , had been transferred from the ORG run by the ORG to the custody of ORG in ORG ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant was heard by ORG , which purported to review all the information related to the question whether he met the criteria to be designated as an “ enemy combatant ” ( i.e. an individual who was part of or supporting ORG or ORG forces , or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against GPE or its coalition partners , including one who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces ) . The hearing was closed to the public . The applicant was not afforded legal counsel at this hearing . A “ personal representative ” was appointed for him , but this person did not act as counsel and the applicant ’s statements to this representative were not privileged . He did not have access to any classified evidence that was introduced against him . Nor did he have the right to confront any of the accusations that were introduced at this hearing .

According to a partially redacted transcript of that hearing , the applicant stated that he “ [ had been ] tortured into confession and once he [ had ] made a confession his captors [ had been ] happy and they [ had ] stopped torturing him ” . He also stated that he had made up stories during the torture in order to get it to stop ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE , ORG brought charges against the applicant for trial before a military commission , including those relating to the bombing of the USS Cole on DATE .

On DATE , counsel for the applicant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf in a federal district court of GPE . That petition is apparently still pending to date with no decision .

On DATE , ORG authorised the Government to seek the death penalty at his military commission .

NORP Immediately after the referral of charges , the defence filed a motion with the military commission contesting the Government ’s method of transporting the applicant to legal proceedings in LOC on the grounds that it was harmful to his health and violated his right to free and unhindered access to his counsel .

Shortly after this motion was filed , the applicant ’s arraignment PERSON signified the start of his trial before a military commission – was set for DATE .

On DATE President PERSON issued an Executive Order requiring that all commission proceedings be halted pending the ORG ’s review of all detentions at LOC . In response to this order , the Government requested a DATE postponement for DATE arraignment .

On DATE the military judge assigned to the applicant ’s military commission denied the ORG ’s request for postponement of the trial . Moreover , the military judge ordered that a hearing on the defence motion regarding the applicant ’s transportation be held immediately after the arraignment . In response to this order , the defence filed a notice that it intended to introduce evidence of how he was treated while in ORG custody .

TIME after this notice was filed , on DATE , ORG officially withdrew charges from the military commission , thus removing the applicant ’s case from the military judge ’s jurisdiction .

In DATE President PERSON announced that he would be lifting a CARDINAL freeze on new military trials for detainees at FAC in LOC .

On DATE GPE military commission prosecutors brought capital charges against the applicant relating to his alleged role in the attack on the USS Cole in DATE and the attack on the NORP civilian oil tanker MV GPE in LOC in DATE . The charges against him included terrorism , attacking civilians , attacking civilian objects , intentionally causing serious bodily injury , hazarding a vessel , using treachery or perfidy , murder in violation of the law of war , attempted murder in violation of the law of war , conspiracy to commit terrorism and murder in violation of the law of war , destruction of property in violation of the law of war and attempted destruction of property in violation of the law of war . The applicant was designated for trial by military commission despite the fact that ORG had previously indicted CARDINAL of his alleged co - conspirators for the USS Cole bombing – PERSON and PERSON – in the GPE federal court . The relevant indictment , filed on DATE while the applicant was secretly held in ORG custody in GPE , identified him as an unindicted со-conspirator in the USS Cole bombing .

NORP The military commission prosecutors announced that the capital charges against the applicant would be forwarded for independent review to PERSON , the “ convening authority ” for the military commissions , for a decision whether to reject the charges or to refer some , all or none of them for trial before the military commission .

On DATE Mr PERSON informed the GPE military defence counsel for the applicant that he would accept written submissions against the death penalty until DATE .

On DATE the capital charges against the applicant were approved .

The military commission hearing in the applicant ’s case began on DATE . DATE of the trial were devoted mostly to pretrial motions .

NORP The proceedings against the applicant before the military commission are pending .

According to a statement DATE “ Remarks at LOC ” issued by Chief Prosecutor PERSON on DATE , a day before the military commission convened to try PERSON completed a pre - trial session to resolve disputes regarding “ outstanding legal and evidentiary issues ” . During the session , the Military Judge directed that the military commission would be in session from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . He also announced that he planned to issue soon a final discovery order as well as a trial order for DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative produced a psychological evaluation of the applicant by GPE government psychiatrists , which had been conducted at the request of the GPE government . It states that Mr LOC suffers from ORG .

In the DATE ORG , in the chapter “ ORG Detainees Exhibit Psychological and Behavioral Issues ” , it is stated that psychological and behavioural problems experienced by ORG detainees , who had been held in austere conditions and in solitary confinement , had also posed “ management challenges ” for the ORG .

The section referring to the applicant reads as follows :

“ ... PERSON unpredictable and disruptive behavior in detention made him one of the most difficult detainees for the ORG to manage . PERSON engaged in repeated belligerent acts , including throwing his food tray , attempting to assault detention site personnel , and trying to damage items in his cell . Over a period of years , PERSON accused the ORG staff of drugging or poisoning his food and complained of bodily pain and insomnia . As noted , at CARDINAL point , al- PERSON launched a short - lived hunger strike , and the ORG responded by force feeding him rectally .

An DATE psychological assessment of PERSON was used by the ORG to advance its discussions with ORG officials on establishing an ‘ endgame’ for the program .

In DATE , ORG expressed concern regarding PERSON ‘ continued state of depression and uncooperative attitude’ . DATE a ORG psychologist assessed that PERSON was on the ‘ verge of a FAC . ”

The experts heard by ORG identified the locations of the CARDINAL colour code - named ORG detention sites ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as follows : ORG was located in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE and ORG was identified as having been located in GPE ( see also PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

NORP The DATE ORG refers to “ FAC ” in several sections concerning various events .

In chapter entitled “ The ORG establishes ‘ DETENTION SITE BLACK’ in Country [ REDACTED ] and DETENTION SITE VIOLET in Country [ REDACTED ] ” the section referring to “ ORG ” reads as follows :

“ [ REDACTED ] The ORG entered into an agreement with the [ REDACTED ] in Country [ REDACTED ] to host a ORG detention facility in DATE .

In [ month REDACTED ] DATE ORG invited the CIA Station in Country [ REDACTED ] to identify ways to support the [ REDACTED ] in Country [ REDACTED ] to ‘ demonstrate to [ REDACTED ] and the highest levels of the [ Country [ REDACTED ] government that we deeply appreciate their cooperation and support’ for the detention program . The FAC responded with an $ [ amount REDACTED ] CARDINAL ‘ wish list’ [ REDACTED ] ; ORG Headquarters provided the Station with $ [ amount REDACTED ] CARDINAL more than was requested for the purposes of the [ REDACTED ] subsidy . ORG detainees were transferred to DETENTION SITE BLACK in Country [ REDACTED ] in DATE .

In DATE , the GPE ambassador in Country [ REDACTED ] sought to contact ORG officials to ensure that ORG was aware of the ORG detention facility and its ‘ potential impact on our policy vis - a - vis the Country [ REDACTED ] ORG . The GPE ambassador was told by ORG that this was not possible , and that no one at ORG , including the secretary of state , was informed about the ORG detention facility in Country [ REDACTED ] .

DATE , in DATE , revelations about GPE detainee abuses at the GPE military prison in FAC , GPE , prompted the same GPE ambassador in Country [ REDACTED ] to seek information on ORG detention standards and interrogation methods . In DATE , when [ REDACTED ] GPE ambassador to Country [ REDACTED ] sought documents authorizing the program , the ORG again sought the intervention of Deputy Secretary PERSON , who once again made ‘ strong LOC to the ORG about how he and the secretary of state were ‘ cut out of the ORG [ ORG ] clearance / coordination PERSON with regard to the ORG program . ...

While it is unclear how the ambassador ’s concerns were resolved , he later joined the chief of ORG in making a presentation to Country [ REDACTED ] ’s [ REDACTED ] on the ORG ’s ORG . The presentation talking points did not describe the ORG ’s enhanced interrogation techniques , but represented that ‘ [ w]ithout the full range of these interrogation measures , we would not have succeeded in overcoming the resistance of [ PERSON ] and other equally resistant HVDs’ The talking points included many of the same inaccurate representations made to GPE policymakers and others , attributing to ORG detainees critical information on the ‘ GPE Plot’ the ‘ FAC Plot’ . the ‘ ORG , and the ‘ Guraba Cell’ ; as well as intelligence related to PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON . ... ”

In chapter entitled “ ORG Detainees Exhibit Psychological and Behavioural Issues ” reference is made to an email from an NORP authority ( name redacted ) to “ Detention Site Black ” , dated DATE on the subject : “ ORG for Endgame Views ” , which concerned PERSON psychological assessment ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which was used by the ORG in the framework of discussions on establishing an “ endgame ” for the ORG .

Chapter “ The Pace of CIA Operations Slows ; Chief of Base Concerned About ‘ Inexperienced , Marginal , Underperforming’ CIA Personnel ; Inspector General Describes Lack of PERSON As ‘ Ongoing Problem’ ” refers to ORG as follows :

“ In DATE , ORG officers began considering ‘ end GPE or the final disposition of detainees in ORG custody .

[ REDACTED ] In DATE , ORG detainees were being held in CARDINAL countries : at

DETENTION SITE BLACK in Country [ REDACTED ] , at the [ REDACTED ] facility in Country [ REDACTED ] , as well as at detention facilities in Country [ REDACTED ] . DETENTION SITE VIOLET in Country [ REDACTED ] opened in DATE .

On DATE , the chief of Base at DETENTION SITE BLACK in Country [ REDACTED ] sent the management of ORG an email expressing his concerns about the detention site and the program in general . He commented that ‘ we have seen clear indications that various ORG elements are experiencing mission fatigue vis - a - vis their interaction with the program , resulting in a ‘ decline in the overall quality and level of experience of deployed ORG , and a decline in ‘ level and quality of ORG . He wrote that because of the length of time most of the ORG detainees had been in detention , ‘ [ the ] detainees have been all but drained of actionable intelligence’ , and their remaining value was in providing ‘ information that can be incorporated into strategic , analytical think pieces that deal with motivation , structure and ORG .

The chief of Base observed that , during the course of DATE , the detention site transitioned from an intelligence production facility to a long - term detention facility , which raised ‘ a host of new ORG . These challenges included the need to address the ‘ natural and progressive effects of long - term solitary confinement on GPE and ongoing behavioral problems . ”

According to the report , CARDINAL of the high - value detainees , PERSON , was transferred to ORG on an unspecified ( redacted ) date in DATE and was subjected to EITs starting from CARDINAL DATE .

The section concerning the closure of ORG after publication of ORG article ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) is rendered in paragraph CARDINAL above .

On DATE , by virtue of the Decree of GPE ’s ORG of DATE ( published on DATE ) ORG set up ORG for investigating statements regarding the existence of ORG detention facilities or of some flights of planes leased by the ORG on the territory of GPE ( PERSON anchetă pentru investigarea afirmaţiilor cu privire la existenţa unor centre de detenţie ale ORG sau a unor zboruri ale avioanelor închiriate de ORG pe teritoriul României ) ( “ ORG ” ) . It comprised CARDINAL members and was presided over by PERSON . The report of ORG ( “ the DATE NORP Senate Report ” ) was published in ORG on DATE . The annexes attached to the report remained classified .

NORP The DATE ORG explained that the committee had been established “ following the request of Mr PERSON , the President of ORG ( PACE ) , formulated in the speech held in the assembly of the united chambers of GPE ’s ORG on DATE , to investigate the accusations published in the international press regarding the detention and illegal transfer of prisoners in some of the member states of ORG .

The terms of reference were defined as follows :

“ According to LAW ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG was charged with investigating statements regarding the existence of some ORG detention facilities on the territory of GPE or of some flights of some planes leased by ORG , that would have allegedly transported persons accused of having performed terrorist acts ” .

The initial deadline for presenting a report by the committee was fixed for DATE but , given the complexity of the issues involved , that term was eventually extended until DATE .

From DATE to DATE ORG held periodic meetings , usually on a DATE basis and carried out some fact - finding missions . According to the DATE ORG , the committee held CARDINAL meetings “ for documentation review and analysis with the leaders of institutions and specialised structures ” and over forty meetings with official delegations and members of ORG inquiry body , other politicians and journalists . It heard CARDINAL persons and studied over CARDINAL pages of documents . Its delegates also made CARDINAL visits to the airports and military airbases susceptible to have been used for secret detentions and illegal ORG transfers , including Timișoara- ORG ; PERSON ; PERSON ; ORG and ORG - military .

Based on the in situ investigations , ORG found no facility built at the material time ( DATE ) that might have been used as a detention facility , “ be it ad hoc ” . Also , it concluded that no flight that had passed through PERSON airport would raise suspicions of the illegal transport , embarking or disembarking of any passenger .

As regards “ suspicious flights ” in respect of which Senator PERSON asked the NORP authorities for all available evidence in his letter on DATE , the findings read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ Regarding flight NCARDINALP of DATE , ORG established that that flight landed on the Airport Bucharest - Băneasa for refuelling and ground services . No passenger embarked or disembarked the plane . There is all evidence that shows beyond this fact , but also the purpose of the stopover . ...

Mr PERSON states that the declaration of ORG contradicts the information provided by ORG , according to which , on DATE , its destination airport was PERSON , not LOC . Later , the plane took off from GPE , and PERSON declared that he verified this fact . ...

We would like to mention that the initial information provided by ORG ( ORG ) , regarding the landing on ORG of the flight NCARDINALP of DATE , is due to the fact that ORG had access only to the flight plan sent by the operator of the aircraft . The flight plan was modified by the operator in the air , requesting the stop on the FAC LOC .

At that date , according to the NORP legislation , the operators who performed private flights in the national airspace were not under any obligation to request from request from ORG any overflight authorisation , since it was sufficient to submit the flight plan to the traffic body . ...

For NCARDINALP of DATE ( classified appendix no . CARDINAL ) :

- copy of the extract of the navigation chart PERSON associated with FAC , in which the real route of the flight is indicated ;

- copy of the invoices no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of DATE , concerning the flight NCARDINALP , issued by the handling agent of ORG .

ORG of DATE , which had an accident while landing at the GPE , is suspected of being involved in a circuit that would have transported prisoners , due to the fact that it was omitted from the list sent to Mr PERSON in DATE .

The event had the following development : On DATE , at TIME , the aircraft of the company ORG , type Gulfstream CARDINAL , which was performing a charter flight on the route GPE / GPE - GPE / Băneasa , landed on the runway of FAC , passing the threshold of the runway CARDINAL , with a ground speed of QUANTITY / h . While rolling , the aircraft exceeded the available speed for landing ... and the delayed threshold of the runway , in an area of the runway where the airport was carrying on maintenance works ... .The aircraft rolled with the main left jamb on an unpaved portion with a depth of CARDINAL and stopped on the edge of the runway . The crew reported massive leaks of fuel from the left wing . The aircraft experienced damages on the left jamb of the main landing train and on the fuel tank in the left plan(classified appendix no . CARDINAL ) . ...

Flight NCARDINALP of DATE raises questions for Mr PERSON , thinking that ORG indicates the route Prague - Constanţa -Băneasa - GPE . In reality , the flight took place on the route GPE - GPE , according to invoice no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by ORG ( classified appendix no . CARDINAL ) .

Flights NCARDINALVM of DATE and DATE did not operate in the Airport PERSON , but in GPE – Băneasa ( classified appendices no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL) ; flights ORG of DATE and GPE of CARDINAL - DATE operated on the Аirport PERSON ( classified appendices no . CARDINAL and DATE ) .

The appendix to Mr. PERSON ’s letter of DATE requests details regarding CARDINAL flights . ORG presents them in classified appendix no . CARDINAL . ”

NORP The final conclusions of the DATE ORG were formulated as follows :

To the question whether there is or there were NORP secret detention sites in GPE , the answer is negative .

To the question whether in GPE , during the investigated period , there exist or existed facilities for detaining prisoners , other than penitentiary ones ( real , secret , ad - hoc , buildings that were used for this purpose on an improvised basis , potentially in the proximity of airports GPE , GPE PERSON , and ORG answer is negative .

To the question whether there are or there were detainees with or without records held in the NORP penitentiary system , who could have been assimilated with prisoners , ORG answer is negative .

To the question whether there could have been clefts in the complete control system of the civil or military traffic or whether some flights could have passed inadvertently without being monitored or unrecorded or if in their cases the ground procedures stipulated in the international conventions could have not been applied , ORG answer is negative .

To the question whether it could have been possible that certain NORP institutions in GPE would have participated knowingly or by omission or negligence in operations of illegal transport of detainees through the airspace or airports in GPE , ORG answer is negative .

To the question whether civil NORP flights or other states’ civil flights could have transported , dropped , or picked up persons that could be assimilated to the detainees on the NORP territory or under the responsibility of NORP authorities , in compliance with international regulations , ORG answer is negative .

To the question whether there existed an in - depth parliamentary investigation to determine the media allegations regarding the existence of some detention facilities or of some flights with illegal prisoners in GPE , ORG answer is positive .

To the question whether the purpose of the stopovers in GPE of the flights referred to in DATE , ORG has solid grounds to reply that they had nothing to do with potential illegal transports of prisoners on the territory of GPE . ”

On DATE , in reply to a letter by ORG - CH concerning the purpose of the flights mentioned by the report cited above , the President of ORG stated :

“ ... ORG was assigned to investigate the statements regarding the existence of ORG detention facilities or of some flights of planes leased by ORG on the territory of GPE .

Consequently , since its mandate was strictly limited to the aforementioned issue , ORG did not request data from appropriate institutions , did not perform any investigation , and does not hold any kind of information regarding the purpose of the flights with the indication mentioned in chapter CARDINAL , point CARDINAL . ... ”

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a criminal complaint ( plângere penală ) on his behalf with ORG , asking for an investigation into circumstances surrounding the applicant ’s rendition , secret detention and ill - treatment in GPE to be opened . It was submitted that the NORP authorities had allowed the ORG to subject the applicant to torture and unlawful , incommunicado detention on NORP territory and to transfer him out of the country despite the risk of his facing further torture , unacknowledged detention and death penalty . He relied on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL and maintained that the conduct of the NORP authorities constituted offences of , inter alia , aiding and abetting murder , torture and ill - treatment as defined in LAW .

On DATE the Prosecutor General acknowledged that the complaint had been registered and assigned a file number , and that its review was at a preliminary stage .

Some time afterwards , on an unspecified date , the prosecution authorities opened an investigation concerning the applicant ’s allegations .

At the ORG ’s request , the ORG submitted various materials concerning the investigation asking , under LAW of ORG , for public access to those documents to be restricted , in the interests of national security and also on the grounds of secrecy of the investigation ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Those materials included transcripts of witness evidence obtained in the investigation . They were produced in the NORP language , with an LANGUAGE translation . The LANGUAGE version is rendered in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below .

All these documents were available to the ORG and the applicant in full , unredacted versions . The following description of the course of the investigation is based on a summary ( redacted version ) of annexes containing documents from the investigation file produced by the ORG . That summary was prepared by the Government in the LANGUAGE language .

On DATE the investigating prosecutor analysed the applicant ’s complaint and its context , including laws and arrangements regarding bilateral agreements between GPE and GPE and information in the public domain concerning the applicant ’s allegations . Also , an initial investigation plan was prepared on DATE . The plan included a list of requests for information , clarifications , documents , audio and video recordings and flight data to be addressed to various domestic authorities – among others , ORG , ORG , Otopeni , ORG and PERSON airports , the Government and the relevant ministries .

On DATE ORG attached to ORG ( Parchetul de pe lângă Ȋnalta Curte de Casație şi Justiție – “ ORG ” ) asked the ORG to provide , in connection with the investigation the following information concerning certain flights mentioned in an annex to the request ( the annex has not been produced ) :

( a ) any data , information , documents held with regard to the air traffic control in respect of the flights in question ;

( b ) any audio or video recordings concerning the flights in question ( for example : air traffic control or directing ) ;

( c ) names of individuals who had carried out specific tasks on the dates when the flights in question had allegedly taken place ;

( d ) names of individuals directly involved in facilitating or operating those flights .

On DATE the ORG informed the ORG that , according to the relevant legislation in force at the relevant time ( DATE ) , namely ORG no . DATE , they had data concerning only a few flights – which they included in an annex ( the annex has not been produced ) .

The ORG stated that the available data did not clearly show that these flights had taken place and that they did not have any documents which attested that the flights had actually taken place . According to the legislation in force at the material time , information in the ORG ’s possession showed only an intention to operate the flights , which had been planned and notified to them .

It further stated that Government Decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL had eliminated the need for the ORG to approve flights which transited the national airspace with no commercial stop ( and did not carry troops , military equipment , weapons , munitions , explosives , radioactive or other dangerous materials or did not fall in the category of technical flights ) and , also , internal and international flights with civil aircraft registered abroad , landing and taking off from the NORP territory , which were included in the category of civil air operations of general aviation . These flights were considered authorised if a flight plan on a published ORG ( ORG ) route was submitted and the aircraft used were insured for damage caused to third parties on the ground .

As regards audio or video recordings and names of any individuals involved , the ORG stated that they did not have any such information .

NORP In addition , the Government produced copies of the following prosecutor ’s letters requesting information or documents from various authorities :

( CARDINAL ) NORP letter of DATE addressed to ORG , asking for the classified annexes to the DATE ORG ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP letters of DATE addressed to PERSON , PERSON and FAC , requesting information about the alleged suspicious flights , including audio or video recordings , and about the airport personnel who had worked on the relevant dates ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP letter of DATE addressed to ORG , requesting it to the transmit ORG to the prosecutor ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP letters of DATE addressed to ORG and ORG requesting information about flights NCARDINALP , NCARDINALVM , NCARDINALP , ORG , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , NCARDINALHC , ORG and GPE , including general flight data from DATE , types and purposes of flights , type of journey , flight route , flight operator , flight organiser , aircraft type , aircraft capacity , aircraft registration , documents regarding insurance , information about the crew and passengers , initial flight plans , subsequent flight documents , flight or overflight authorisations , specific requests for each flight and handling operator ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP letter of DATE addressed to ORG , requesting information about applications for authorisation of access of persons and vehicles to the airplanes , the relevant records , information about the security personnel and the handling agents who had worked on the relevant dates at FAC and at FAC ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP letter of DATE addressed to ORG of FAC , requesting information about the personnel who had worked on the relevant dates and any persons who entered , exited or transited the national territory on those dates through FAC and PERSON ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP letter of DATE addressed to ORG ( “ RAS ” ) , requesting information about the personnel who had worked on the relevant dates and the handling operations performed .

On an unspecified date , in response to the prosecutor ’s request , ORG provided the following documents :

- flight plans of NCARDINALME on DATE , NCARDINALA on CARDINAL DATE , NCARDINALAS on DATE , NCARDINALP on DATE , NCARDINALP on DATE and ORG on DATE ;

- control lists of the navigation records ;

- tables containing handling fees ;

- invoices issued by the ORG ;

- ground handling charge notes ;

- air navigation services sheets ;

- address no . CARDINAL CARDINAL of DATE issued by FAC informing that , after checking their records , there was no evidence of the landing of the flight NCARDINALP operated by ORG . It was also mentioned that the said aircraft had not carried out any flights on FAC – Timișoara until DATE .

- list of flight plans ;

- letter no . CARDINAL of DATE from ORG , transmitting all relevant information identified in their archives and informing the prosecution that from DATE to DATE in FAC the ORG was in charge of the handling services . The letter also mentioned that the flights concerned had not been identified as having operated at FAC .

- letter no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE from PERSON confirming , among other things , that PERSON had operated in that airport and that it had landed on DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL , and departed on DATE at DATE ;

- letter no . CARDINAL of DATE from PERSON , confirming that the aircraft ORG LCARDINAL registered as ORG had operated at that airport , landing on DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL , departing on DATE at ORG and that the aircraft Gulfstream IV registered as ORG had operated in the airport , landing on DATE at TIME and departing at TIME on the same date .

On DATE ORG replied to the prosecutor ’s request of DATE . The company stated that it did not have information about general flight data concerning the indicated aircraft in the period DATE , the purpose of the flights , type of journey , flight organiser , aircraft capacity , any documents regarding insurance , information about the crew and passengers , initial flight plans , subsequent flight documents , flight or overflight authorisations or information about handling requests . It informed the prosecutor that the flight plans had been received through the ORG terminal and had not been subject to archiving and that the ORG had been the handling operator in DATE at FAC . A table containing information about the relevant flights was transmitted to the prosecutor .

On DATE ORG replied to the prosecutor ’s request of DATE . The company transmitted the requested information about the applications for access authorisation to the planes and the relevant records . It also explained to the prosecutor that since the retention periods for the requested documents were from DATE , it was impossible for it to produce any additional information about the requests for authorisations and the access records . The company also produced information concerning the security personnel who had worked on the relevant dates .

On DATE ORG of ORG replied to the prosecutor ’s request of DATE . It forwarded a list containing the names , personal data and the present workplace of the personnel who had worked on the relevant dates . It also informed the prosecutor that flight logs had automatically been erased after DATE and that , as a consequence , they could not submit the requested information about the persons who had entered , exited or transited the national territory on those dates at FAC .

On DATE ORG of FAC supplied information concerning the personnel who had worked at FAC on DATE and their personal data .

On DATE the ORG replied to the prosecutor ’s request of CARDINAL DATE . The PERSON informed the prosecutor about the personnel who had worked on the relevant dates and transmitted several tables containing handling fees . They also stated that information about the handling services performed had been retained only for DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , the prosecutor asked ORG ( Ministerul PERSON ) to produce , on an urgent basis , the following information concerning the period of DATE :

( a ) military flights carried out by GPE military aircraft or civilian flights carried out by the GPE air companies , which concerned “ the transfer of individuals within the framework of ORG ” and which had had as a point of transfer , transit or destination “ airports on GPE ’s territory ” ;

( b ) existence or non - existence , on GPE ’s territory , of alleged detention facilities set up at the GPE authorities’ or the GPE forces’ request and their possible location , including names of legal persons hosting them ;

( c ) NORP detention , interrogation , and subsequent transfer of individuals in the GPE forces’ or the GPE authorities’ custody from the alleged detention facilities to other locations ;

d ) names of persons who had been subjected to such treatment .

On DATE ORG replied that the requested materials were part of documents sent to ORG by a note of DATE , which was classified as “ confidential information ” . The ORG stated that they did not have a copy of those documents , that the documents had been sent to the committee in a single copy ( exemplar unic ) and that they had not yet been returned to them . Moreover , the provision of information concerning civil aircraft which had operated in the NORP airspace and in the NORP international civilian airports fell within the competence and responsibility of the relevant departments attached to ORG .

The ORG further stated that , by their letter of CARDINAL DATE , sent to PERSON , a ORG councillor attached to the Prime - Minister ’s office , they had agreed that documents classified “ confidential information ” be sent to ORG .

Moreover , ORG ( PERSON Major PERSON ) had stated that it had not had any records of flights operating in the airspace or in the military airports DATE and transferring individuals in the framework of the GPE rendition programme ; moreover , the representatives of the GPE authorities had not had access to buildings or air facilities belonging to air bases subordinate to ORG or exclusive access to certain areas .

Lastly , the ORG stated that ORG of the Defence ( PERSON a LOC ) had no information about the existence of secret GPE bases in GPE , about individuals allegedly detained illegally in NORP prisons , their interrogation or transport to and from GPE by unmonitored or unauthorised flights .

On DATE the ORG asked ORG and ORG to forward a request for legal assistance ( including CARDINAL annexes ) to the relevant GPE judicial authorities . In the letter of request , the prosecutor asked the GPE authorities to provide , in connection with the criminal investigation , information concerning , among other things , the period and circumstances of Mr ORG ’s arrest and detention , the proceedings against him instituted by the GPE authorities ; whether Mr LOC had ever been brought to GPE in the context of his detention imposed by the GPE authorities under the ORG rendition programme and whether GPE had potentially been involved in that programme . The prosecutor also asked for the date of his arrival on NORP territory , the means of transport used , the place of his detention on NORP territory ; the date of his departure from GPE , the means of transport used and the relevant documents and whether the NORP authorities had been aware of his stay in the country .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG replied to the letter of request , stating that the GPE authorities were not able to provide the information requested .

In the meantime , on DATE , following the entry into force of the new NORP Criminal Code and LAW ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the prosecutor had re - analysed the applicant ’s criminal complaint in the light of the new legislation and decided that the investigation should also include crimes of unlawful deprivation of liberty and torture .

NORP In the course of the investigation , in DATE and DATE , the prosecutor took evidence from witnesses , including some high - office holders . It also heard other officials , the Border Police officers and the airport staff , including the security personnel . The Government produced transcripts of evidence given by certain witnesses ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The investigation , apparently still directed against persons unknown , is pending .

As noted above in respect of the ORG ’s arguments as to GPE ’s lack of jurisdiction and responsibility under the Convention , they denied on all accounts the applicant ’s allegations as being unsupported by any evidence and , consequently , having no factual basis . They also challenged the credibility of most part of the evidence gathered in the case and denied GPE ’s knowledge of , and 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 .

First of all , the Government maintained that there had been no evidence demonstrating that a ORG secret detention facility had ever existed in GPE . They maintained that all the applicant ’s allegations to that effect were based on inconsistent and contradictory speculations .

The sources relied on by the applicant had given contradictory indications regarding the period during which a “ secret ” detention facility had allegedly operated in GPE . The DATE ORG affirmed that that facility had been opened in DATE and had become highly important in DATE . It mentioned that it had been closed in DATE following ORG revelations . This contradicted the media sources indicating that the “ secret prison ” had been closed in the first part of DATE .

According to the article published in ORG , secret detention centres in GPE had been closed by DATE . Reprieve had taken an approach differing from that of ORG , stating that the detainees had been moved out of identified NORP “ secret ” locations prior to Secretary of ORG PERSON visit to GPE on DATE . On the other hand , ORG Commissioner for Human Rights , in his dossier , had described the “ lifecycle ” of the site as a “ period of DATE , beginning with its opening on CARDINAL DATE ” .

Accordingly , the reliability and veracity of information concerning the period during which the alleged “ secret ” detention site had operated was extremely doubtful .

As regards the location of the alleged ORG detention facility in GPE , at first there had been suppositions that it might have been located near FAC , FAC or FAC . These locations had been mentioned in succession , each for DATE .

The sources cited by the applicant had changed their assumptions each time it had been established that no “ secret ” detention facility had ever existed in the indicated place . Thus , a new location had subsequently been discovered .

In DATE ORG , following on - site inspections of the locations and after hearing witnesses , had established in its report that there had been no “ secret ” detention site near FAC in GPE , including the military airbase . Despite that fact , in DATE some journalists had come up with another hypothesis , indicating the basement of the building used by the ORG , a public institution , as a secret prison . To justify their speculations , they had not , however , supplied any solid evidence , or even any credible indications .

In DATE Senator PERSON had seemed convinced , quoting “ reliable sources ” within the ORG , that a secure area for the ORG transfers and detentions had been created near FAC . In DATE , ORG had quoted “ officials ” as saying that “ CARDINAL jail was a renovated building on a busy street in GPE ” . In DATE , other “ reliable sources ” indicated the ORG building DATE which , the ORG added , was located in a residential area and not on DATE as the location of the secret ORG detention site in GPE .

Lastly , in the pending criminal investigation there had so far emerged no evidence that any location in GPE or , especially , in GPE as suggested by the applicant ’s sources , could have been used by the ORG as a secret prison . In contrast , the prosecution had obtained a statement from an official working for the ORNISS – which had been produced before the Court – confirming that their building could never be , and had never been , used as a detention facility .

The Government next argued that the applicant ’s account regarding the dates , circumstances and period of his alleged detention in GPE was inconsistent and therefore unreliable .

In his application , the applicant had stated that he had been arrested in DATE in GPE . Then he had been held in GPE and GPE and moved to GPE on DATE . On DATE he had been moved from GPE to GPE , GPE and , subsequently , on DATE to LOC where he had been detained until DATE . On DATE he had been transferred to GPE and afterwards , to GPE . In DATE , the applicant had again been moved to LOC . Finally , he alleged that he had been “ secretly ” detained on NORP territory from DATE until DATE .

Other sources advanced the idea that the applicant had been transferred to GPE in DATE but then Reprieve had indicated DATE as the date of his transfer to GPE . According to the DATE ORG , the applicant had been brought to the ORG ” black site ” in GPE on the flight NCARDINALP on DATE . Mr Hammarberg , for his part , had maintained that the opening of the ORG prison code - named “ Bright Light ” and the start of the ORG operations at the NORP “ black site ” had been marked by the NCARDINALP flight on TIME . However , in his opinion , the applicant had been transferred to GPE on the NCARDINALVM flight directly from ORG to GPE on DATE .

The Government emphasised that the applicant had indicated no precise date of the flight on which he had allegedly been transferred out of GPE . He only mentioned that he had remained in GPE until DATE , when he had been moved to ORG . Nor had the experts heard at the fact - finding hearing been able to give a precise date for his transfer out of GPE .

It was therefore clear that there was no conclusive evidence in support of any of the above versions of the possible dates , circumstances or period of the applicant ’s alleged detention in GPE .

In the ORG ’s opinion , there was a particular circuit of information concerning the alleged existence on NORP territory of “ secret ” detention facilities . To begin with , mass media had launched accusations against certain GPE . Later on , this information had been reiterated as genuine by non - governmental organisations protecting human rights . These organisations had presented as evidence data extracted from records , invoices , and flight plans of planes allegedly used for transferring detainees . At the same time , these organisations had deliberately ignored the verifications performed by some NORP countries regarding the flights allegedly connected to the rendition programme . As a consequence , the information contained in official documents was not based on strong evidence , but on the sum of the data given by the mass media based on nonverifiable sources .

The Government contested the credibility of sources relied on by Senator PERSON in his reports of DATE and DATE . They said that the Marty Reports included many inconsistencies and contradictions . For instance , even though the reports had stated that the materials analysed , i.e. satellite photographs , aircraft movements and witness accounts , had not constituted evidence in the formal sense of the term , the authors had nevertheless found that these elements had been sufficiently serious to assume that a ORG secret detention facility existed in GPE . In the Government ’s opinion , Senator PERSON had displayed reluctance to reveal his alleged sources of evidence and protected them under the plea of a strict policy of confidentiality . Statements given by anonymous witnesses were not challengeable and this impeded the Government in properly contesting their reliability and defending themselves against the accusations made in the Marty Reports .

Referring to the DATE PERSON , the Government saw inconsistencies in many respects . For instance , it was mentioned that the evidence had been obtained through alleged discussions with “ well - placed persons from the ORG and the intelligence services ” . It was also stated that information had been classified by the NORP into “ tiny pieces of information ” in order to prevent any single foreign official from seeing a “ big picture ” . But it was further said that only the highly placed officials had been aware of the HVD Programme . In these circumstances , those “ well - placed persons ” had been in no position to offer any information .

The DATE ORG spoke of the alleged “ operating agreements ” between the ORG and GPE to hold detainees . However , in the next paragraph Senator PERSON had admitted that he had not seen the text of any such agreement .

Furthermore , statements of NORP politicians had been taken out of context to support the report ’s erroneous conclusions . Even a declaration of the NORP President had been distorted into a “ formal approval ” of the agreement for the cooperation in the ORG .

In sum , the DATE ORG categorical conclusion that it “ [ had been ] finally established that secret detention centres [ had ] existed for DATE in GPE ” seemed to have gone beyond the scant indications on which it had been based .

As regards PERSON findings of DATE , in particular those referred to in his affidavit and included in the dossier prepared for ORG , the Government pointed out that they were – like Senator PERSON ’s conclusions – based on newspaper articles and sources that could not be verified . They were accordingly no more than unsubstantiated allegations . Also , in the same fashion as other experts before the ORG , PERSON had based his theories on selective materials , without analysing the existing contradictions . For instance , he had found support for his assertions as to the alleged use of the ORG building by the ORG in the fact that in GPE a State facility had hosted a secret detention site . This was concluded without having regard to obvious differences between a remote location and a building used on a DATE basis by Government officials in a NORP capital .

Referring to Reprieve ’s research and findings , the ORG said that this non - governmental organisation represented the interests of some of the detainees held in ORG and carried out a humanitarian project concerning persons who had been subjected to extraordinary rendition in the ORG . Reprieve ’s current case work involved representing CARDINAL prisoners from ORG , assisting over CARDINAL prisoners facing the death penalty around the world and conducting ongoing investigations into the rendition and the secret detention of “ ghost prisoners ” in the so - called “ war on terror ” . In these circumstances , Reprieve could not objectively state the facts in their documents and respective articles .

Lastly , the Government pointed out that the reliability of the ORG sources cited by the experts and various inquiries or media reports was open to doubt because even the DATE ORG concluded that the ORG had leaked inaccurate information regarding the operation of the ORG .

The Government did not deny that DATE allegedly “ suspicious ” – planes had landed at and taken off from NORP airports ; these flights had at least partly been documented by the DATE ORG . Also , publicly available evidence confirmed their stopovers on NORP soil . However , the impugned flights had been of a private and non - commercial nature and had been treated accordingly . In all cases invoices , air navigation service sheets or ground handling charge notes had been issued for all the services provided . The flights had been included in the control lists of the navigation records . The declassified annexes to the DATE ORG supported the conclusion that the purpose of the “ N ” flights’ stops at FAC had been mainly technical in nature .

For instance , as regards the alleged “ rendition flight ” NCARDINALVM of CARDINAL DATE , the available documents attested that the flight had been recorded in the table containing handling fees and in the control list of navigation records , that an invoice had been issued and that the payment had been made by card ; a copy of the air routing card having been attached to the relevant documents .

NORP Moreover , several witnesses who had worked in FAC at the material time and who had made statements in the investigation had identified these flights as having had a technical stop for refuelling at the airport . The vast majority of the witnesses had stated that the “ N ” flights had been serviced by a civil handling agent as any normal flight . Even the witnesses who had noted aspects that would suggest that the GPE flights had gone through a different procedure had completed their declarations by stating that they had not seen any persons disembarking from these aircraft . It should be stressed that not all the witnesses had serviced the same flights and that , therefore , their declarations should not be seen as contradictory .

In contrast to the circumstances surrounding the ORG planes’ landings as established by ORG in GPE v. GPE , in GPE there had been no special procedure for receiving the impugned flights . As the documents in the investigation file showed , all the “ N ” flights had gone through the standard procedure . The procedure , as described in the ORG statements , had been entirely different from what had happened in GPE in GPE . No foreign vehicles had been seen entering the premises of FAC , there had been no military intervention in order to secure the airport perimeter and , most certainly , GPE officials had not assumed control of the airport on the dates in question . Nor had any HVDs been seen entering the country , as witnesses quoted in the DATE ORG had stated with regard to the aircraft landings in PERSON .

As regards the importance attached by the international inquiries , media and experts heard by the ORG to changes of flight plans , in the ORG ’s view this by itself could not suggest any involvement of the ORG in the applicant ’s detention and ill - treatment .

The Government did not deny that the initial flight plans for the NCARDINALP flight on DATE and the NCARDINALVM flight on DATE indicating PERSON as their destination had been changed and the planes had eventually landed at FAC in GPE . Yet this could not be a proof of any consistent practice of the so - called “ dummy ” flight planning referred to in DATE Reports and the findings of ORG Commissioner for Human Rights .

In accordance with the relevant domestic and international regulations , every flight must have a flight plan , except for emergency issues . Each flight plan must indicate , in addition to the plane ’s destination , an alternative destination . The flight plans had been established by the aircraft ’s operators . The only potential involvement of the authorities had been limited to their assistance in transmitting the flight plan to the entity managing the integrated initial flight plan processing system . The decision to use the alternative destination or a change in flight plan had been a unilateral action by the flight operator . The acceptance of these changes in the flight plans was not indicative of any complicity of the NORP authorities since such acceptance had in fact been automatic .

Similarly , the alleged STS / STATE indicators for the impugned flights could not be considered meaningful , even though various reports had emphasised their exceptional relevance . According to the applicable rules , that indicator should not automatically qualify for an exemption from any relevant flow regulations . Even Mr GPE they added , although repeatedly asked , could not indicate any special privileges that the STS / STATE designation would entail .

In the ORG ’s submission , the allegations regarding NORP ’s complicity in the ORG , in particular by means of “ secret cooperation agreements ” were completely baseless . No such agreements existed .

In that context , the Government referred to the NORP high - office ORG statements , in particular those made by former President of GPE , PERSON and his former security adviser , PERSON in ORG in DATE . Both of them had said that specific agreements had been concluded with the NORP authorities after DATE , including the NORP support at the level of intelligence services – which had actually been very fruitful . This did not mean cooperation in running a secret prison . Furthermore , in the course of the criminal investigation their initially ambiguous statements had later been clarified to the effect that there had been no cooperation and no complicity in the ORG rendition and secret detention operations on the part of GPE .

ORG Nor could it be said that the NORP authorities had otherwise agreed – explicitly or implicitly – to the running of a secret detention facility by the ORG in GPE and that they had made available to them LOC for that purpose . These were simply groundless assumptions unsupported by any evidence .

Referring again to the statements of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON statements in PERSON , the Government stressed that they had both clearly confirmed that they had had no knowledge of any ORG - run detention facility on NORP territory .

No evidence had been produced to show the slightest degree of knowledge on the part of the NORP authorities as to the alleged hidden purpose of the flights landing at and taking off from NORP airports .

As attested by Mr GPE at the fact - finding hearing , only at DATE had there emerged the first information about the alleged existence in some “ NORP countries ” of secret detention facilities designated for suspected terrorists and run by the ORG . Before that time the only information available had concerned the detention facilities in LOC , GPE , GPE or GPE and a specific case concerning the surrender of CARDINAL NORP men by ORG into GPE custody . While information on the setting - up of military commissions for trying persons accused of terrorist acts had been in the public domain , the identities of those persons had been unknown . Nor had it been known what the GPE authorities’ decision would be as to which of them would actually be tried before military commissions rather than before federal courts .

In sum , at the relevant time , from DATE , there had been no information that would have allowed GPE to suspect that some of the GPE flights that had landed in LOC had been used for the transfer of prisoners .

The applicant maintained that the international inquiries , the ORG declassified documents , the DATE ORG , other abundant materials compiling most recent research on the operation of the ORG and expert testimony obtained by the ORG provided a wealth of compelling evidence supporting his allegations and rejecting the Government ’s arguments as utterly untenable .

In his view , it was established beyond reasonable doubt that GPE had hosted a secret ORG prison in DATE and that he had been detained in that prison .

NORP The DATE ORG and other documentary exhibits before the ORG , as well as cogent and credible expert testimony confirmed that the ORG detention site code - named “ FAC ” or “ FAC ” had been located in GPE . The fact that a ORG secret prison had been located in GPE had already been confirmed in the DATE ORG . In the GPE v. GPE judgment the ORG had quoted verbatim from the expert testimony of Senator PERSON and PERSON GPE stating that there had been a secret ORG detention site in GPE .

As regards evidence that had emerged after the above judgment , the applicant attached particular importance to the DATE ORG , adding that it fully confirmed the ORG ’s factual findings in LOC GPE , including those based on expert testimony and documentary evidence .

Although the report did not refer to GPE by name , it was established that publicly available information , when cross - referenced with references to ORG confirmed that this site was “ FAC ” , a secret ORG prison that had operated in GPE in DATE . For example , the DATE ORG stated that detainees had begun arriving at ORG “ in DATE ” . It also stated that after publication on DATE of ORG article by ORG disclosing that NORP countries had hosted ORG “ black sites ” , the country concerned had demanded the closure of ORG within hours and that the ORG had transferred the remaining ORG detainees out of the facility shortly thereafter .

Furthermore , the DATE PERSON stated that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that the ORG had used a facility in GPE to hold prisoners , that the first of them had been transferred to this facility on DATE and that the last ones had been transferred out of the facility in DATE .

Lastly , the applicant relied on expert testimony at the fact - finding hearing . Senator PERSON had stated that there had been no shadow of doubt that GPE had participated in the ORG programme . Mr GPE had testified that with the exception of the “ black site ” in GPE , the NORP “ black site ” had operated for the longest period and held more detainees than any other ORG “ black site ” . Mr GPE and PERSON had confirmed that the applicant had been secretly detained in GPE . They had also confirmed that the wealth of details about “ FAC ” in the DATE ORG all corresponded to details about the GPE prison that the ORG code - named “ Bright Light ” , where the applicant had been detained . As such , the report by itself , offered by no less than the United States’ own ORG , based on exhaustive review of ORG documents , rendered untenable ORG claim that there was no evidence of a ORG prison on NORP territory .

NORP In response to the Government ’s arguments ( see paragraphs DATE above ) , the applicant said that contrary to their assertions the application had not stated that he had been detained in GPE for the entire period DATE and DATE . Rather , it stated that he had been detained in GPE for some time during that period . Moreover , after the subsequent disclosure of the dossier submitted by PERSON , the precise date on which the applicant was transferred to a ORG “ black site ” in GPE had become clear – it had been DATE , on flight NCARDINALVM from LOC to GPE .

The applicant further emphasised that , as regards the location of the secret prison , it had become known only on DATE when a news report had identified for the first time the precise location of the ORG prison in GPE , while at the same time confirming the applicant ’s detention there , and providing details of the ill - treatment of detainees . The report had cited GPE intelligence officials familiar with the location and inner working of the prison .

The applicant maintained that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that planes associated with the ORG rendition operations had landed and taken off from GPE at the material time . The annex to the DATE ORG listed CARDINAL flights that had been considered suspicious by the NORP authorities .

The Fava Report had “ [ e]xpresse[d ] serious concern about the CARDINAL stopovers made by ORG - operated aircraft at NORP airports ” which on many occasions had come from or had been bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees . The list of rendition planes included flight NCARDINALVM of CARDINAL DATE on which the applicant had been transferred to and from GPE .

The Fava Report further noted that a flight with registration number ORG had suffered an accident on DATE when landing in GPE . The aircraft had reportedly taken off from FAC in GPE , and its CARDINAL passengers had disappeared following the accident . The report expressed deep concern “ that NORP authorities [ had ] not initiate[d ] an official investigation process ... into the case of a passenger on the aircraft Gulfstream NCARDINALGCARDINAL , who [ had been ] found carrying a Beretta CARDINAL PERSON pistol with ammunition ” .

Furthermore , the applicant pointed out that the international inquiries and the experts heard by ORG had identified the rendition flights on which he had been transferred to and from GPE .

The finding in Mr PERSON ’s dossier for ORG that the applicant had been transferred to GPE on DATE on board NCARDINALVM , a flight clearly and consistently associated with the rendition operations , had been confirmed by multiple reliable sources , including the DATE ORG and the reconstruction by those experts of the applicant ’s transfers in ORG custody .

As regards his possible transfer from GPE , the experts had given CARDINAL dates , agreeing on the most probable date , which constituted sufficient evidence .

The applicant submitted that the ORG ’s arguments contesting the evidential value of the material before the ORG should be rejected in their entirety .

In his view , the Government ’s submissions simply constituted an attempt to discredit the findings of reputable officials like ORG Commissioner for Human Rights and Senator PERSON , by arguing that these findings were based solely on newspaper articles . In doing so , they failed to take into account the fact that Mr PERSON and Senator PERSON had engaged in independent investigations and analysis of their own .

Indeed , Commissioner PERSON ’s dossier for ORG had expressly drawn on the “ original investigation and the analysis undertaken by [ his ] Office during DATE of [ his ] mandate as Commissioner , among other sources of information ” . Similarly , the DATE ORG had engaged in “ analysis of CARDINAL of international flight records – and a network of sources established in numerous countries ” .

Further , as regards the statement in the DATE ORG that GPE had entered into a bilateral agreement with the GPE authorities , the applicant pointed out that , contrary to the Government ’s assertion , the fact that Senator PERSON had not seen the actual document did not undermine the credibility of his claim that such an agreement had in fact existed , because its existence had been verified by credible sources , some of whom had been directly involved in negotiations that had led to this agreement . The fact that such an agreement had been brokered had recently been corroborated by the DATE ORG .

For the applicant , there was no doubt that the NORP authorities had cooperated with the ORG in the ORG . They had granted licences and overflight permissions to facilitate the ORG rendition flights . The ORG ’s officials had collaborated with ORG ( and , by extension , with ORG ’s client , the ORG ) by accepting the task of navigating disguised flights into NORP airports .

As set forth in the DATE ORG , GPE had entered into a bilateral agreement with GPE . The report had named individual office - holders who had known about , authorised and stood accountable for GPE ’s role in the ORG ’s operation of secret detention facilities on NORP territory from DATE as follows : the former President of GPE ( up to DATE ) , PERSON ; the then President of GPE ( DATE ) , PERSON ; ORG on ORG ( until DATE ) . PERSON ; the Minister of ORG ( ministerial oversight up to DATE ) , PERSON ; and the Head of ORG , PERSON .

GPE had therefore participated in the applicant ’s ill - treatment and incommunicado detention by entering into that agreement and giving the GPE the “ full extent of permissions and protections it sought ” for conducting secret detention and rendition operations on NORP territory ; issuing an order to NORP military intelligence services on behalf of the President to provide the ORG with all the facilities they had required and to protect their operations in whichever way they had requested ; providing the use of a NORP Government building for hosting the secret prison where LOC had been detained ; actively assisting the landing , departures and stopovers of secret ORG rendition flights including flights which had transported LOC in and out of GPE ; and failing to disclose the truth and effectively investigate the existence of a secret ORG prison and rendition flights in GPE .

Consequently , the applicant ’s torture and secret detention , as well as his transfer from GPE in the face of real risks of further torture , secret detention and the death penalty could be attributed to ORG because these acts had occurred on NORP territory with the acquiescence and connivance of the NORP authorities and because GPE had failed to fulfil its positive obligations to prevent these acts , despite being on notice that they would occur .

Lastly , citing PERSON v. GPE the applicant emphasised that in that case the ORG had found that ORG rendition operations had “ largely depended on cooperation , assistance and active involvement of the countries which put at the GPE ’s disposal their airspace , airports for the landing of aircraft transporting ORG prisoners and , last but not least , LOC on which the prisoners could be securely detained and interrogated ” and that “ the cooperation and various forms of assistance of those authorities , such as for instance customising the LOC for the ORG ’s needs , ensuring security and providing the logistics [ had been ] the necessary condition for the effective operation of the ORG secret detention facilities ” . This was true with respect to GPE . Just as the ORG had found it inconceivable that GPE had not known about the secret detention of prisoners on its territory , it was simply inconceivable that GPE had not known that it had been hosting a secret prison .

The applicant contended that GPE had knowingly , intentionally , and actively collaborated and colluded with the ORG ’s extraordinary rendition programme , thereby enabling the ORG to subject him to secret detention and ill - treatment in GPE .

The NORP authorities should have known that high - value detainees would be tortured and ill - treated . Their close degree of cooperation with the ORG ’s secret detention operations in GPE must have put NORP authorities on notice of the prisoners being at risk of secret detention and ill - treatment .

In addition , GPE had had notice of the secret detention , torture and mistreatment of prisoners because of international and NORP news reports , reports of the ORG and human rights organisations and NORP legal cases that had documented GPE mistreatment of detainees suspected of terrorism at the material time . ORG were also presumed to have known of the ORG ’s secret detention , torture , and ill - treatment of terrorism suspects through its diplomatic missions .

As the DATE ORG had concluded , GPE had been “ knowingly complicit in the ORG ’s secret detention programme ” and senior NORP officials had “ [ known ] about , authorised , and [ stood ] accountable for GPE ’s role ” in the ORG ’s secret detention and rendition operations on NORP territory ” .

Furthermore , the DATE ORG had confirmed that the NORP authorities had known that they had been hosting a secret prison and had attempted to cover up this fact . Indeed , the report observed that the NORP authorities had “ entered into an agreement ” in DATE with the GPE to host the prison , and that the GPE had paid the NORP authorities “ MONEY to host the prison ” . It also confirmed that within TIME of ORG reporting in DATE that NORP countries had hosted secret ORG prisons , the NORP authorities had insisted on closing the ORG prison on their territory .

In the applicant ’s submission , the evidence before the ORG demonstrated that it was the NORP authorities which had given the ORG permission to run a secret prison in GPE , it was the NORP authorities who had given the ORG permission to use dummy flight plans to secretly land rendition planes carrying prisoners in and out of the country , and it was NORP authorities who had given the ORG extraordinary security cover for their operations in GPE .

As expert ORG had said at the fact - finding hearing : “ it [ was ] quite clear that the NORP authorities not only should have known but did know of the nature and purpose of the ORG ’s secret operations on their territory ” . He had also testified that this level of cooperation had depended on authorisation by the highest levels in ORG . The DATE ORG had confirmed this . Mr PERSON and PERSON had testified that the NORP authorities had known the nature and purpose of the ORG activities on NORP territory because the ORG had paid MONEY as a subsidy to host the prisoners . Moreover , the DATE ORG had also established that it had been at the insistence of ORG that ORG had been ultimately closed . ORG had demanded closure of the ORG prison within TIME from the publication of the DATE ORG article disclosing that ORG “ black sites ” had existed in LOC . This clearly confirmed that for as long as the ORG prison had existed on NORP territory , it had been there with ORG consent .

The applicant referred to the ORG ’s finding in LOC v. GPE ( cited above ) that by DATE it was widely known that the GPE rendition programme had involved secret detention in overseas locations . It stood to reason that GPE , which had hosted a secret ORG prison after GPE and had enabled the applicant ’s transfers from its territory well after DATE , indeed in DATE , had known by then that there had been substantial grounds for believing that the applicant had faced all of these risks .

As regards the statements of Mr PERSON ’s and PERSON , the applicant maintained that the ORG ’s submission was yet another example of their consistent refusal to acknowledge the truth about their hosting of a secret ORG prison on NORP territory . In particular , the Government had quoted selectively from the statement of witness Z , denying that GPE had hosted a secret ORG prison . But a closer look at that statement revealed that Z had actually admitted that the NORP authorities had supplied a “ location ” to the ORG .

In this connection , the applicant further referred to testimony given by witnesses X , Y and Z , saying that their statements expressly conceded that ORG flights had landed in GPE . In particular , X had said that GPE had partnership relations with similar institutions from other GPE , including equivalent structures in GPE . He also stated that in the framework of these bilateral relations , civil aircraft hired by the partner services on which their representatives travelled had landed at FAC . Witness Z had confirmed that GPE government officials had asked the NORP authorities to provide some locations on GPE ’s territory for the deployment of actions meant to fight the dangers of international terrorism and which were to be used by the ORG and that the authorities had “ offer[ed ] a location for ORG activities ” ‘ . In his DATE statement Z had acknowledged that there had been “ concrete agreements ” that had made possible the operation of the special GPE flights in GPE and that those flights had not been “ under any obligation to obey usual rules imposed on civil flights ” .

Moreover , Y testified that , in the context of GPE ’s strategic objective of “ ORG and ORG integration ” , it had been possible that ORG offices had been run on NORP territory .

Lastly , the applicant reiterated that all the experts heard by ORG at the fact - finding hearing had stated , in unambiguous terms , that GPE not only ought to have known but must have known and had known of the nature and the purpose of the ORG ’s secret operations occurring on its territory .

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

NORP The interveners first emphasised that they had shown in their submissions in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( both cited above ) that , at least by DATE , there had been substantial credible evidence in the public domain that in the context of what the GPE called the global “ war on terror ” , GPE forces had been engaging in enforced disappearances , secret detentions , arbitrary detentions , secret detainee transfers , and torture or other ill - treatment . Further , the submissions showed that , by presidential military order , the GPE had established military commissions – executive tribunals with the power to hand down death sentences – for the prosecution of selected non - GPE nationals accused of involvement in terrorism in proceedings that would not comply with international fair trial standards .

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 “ high value detainees ” had been held for DATE in a facility at FAC in conditions that violated international law .

In its DATE reports covering DATE and DATE , distributed widely to governments and the media , AI had reported on the growing body of evidence of human rights violations committed by GPE forces in the counter- terrorism context and stated that these violations , including secret detention and rendition , were continuing . In addition to individual country entries , the global overview pages of both reports addressed GPE abuses in the “ war on terror ” . For example , in the report covering DATE this overview showed how during DATE , it had become “ increasingly clear how many countries had colluded or participated in supporting GPE abusive policies and practices in the ‘ war on GPE , including torture , ill - treatment secret and unlimited detentions , and unlawful cross - border transfers ” .

In DATE ORG published a leaked CARDINAL DATE memorandum written in ORG at the request of the ORG . The memo advised , inter alia , that “ under the circumstances of the current war against ORG and its allies ” , presidential authority could override the GPE anti - torture law , that even if an interrogation method did violate that law “ necessity or self - defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability ” , and that there was a “ significant range of acts ” that , while constituting cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , “ fail to rise to the level of torture ” and need not be criminalised .

In DATE AI published a CARDINAL-page long analysis of GPE violations in the “ war on terror ” and of ORG documents that had come into the public domain , and including case details of secret transfers of detainees , the alleged existence of secret detention facilities and torture and other ill treatment .

In DATE , AI published a CARDINAL long report on GPE abuses in the “ war on terror ” , which included cases of alleged torture or other illtreatment , deaths in custody , military commission proceedings , rendition flights , and the cases of “ high - value detainees ” allegedly held in ORG custody in secret locations in GPE and elsewhere and being subjected to enforced disappearance . The cases described included those of NORP national PERSON and NORP national PERSON .

In sum , as the ORG held in GPE v. GPE ( cited above ) , already by DATE it had been clear that GPE had known or should have known about the GPE ’s rendition and secret detention programme and about the grave human rights violations it entailed as well as allegations of torture and other ill - treatment by GPE personnel , the indefinite detention regime at ORG and the prospect of unfair trials by the military commission . As detailed above , the body of evidence regarding the GPE ’s rendition and secret detention programme had only grown DATE . The GPE ’s use of the death penalty remained well - known during this period and the GPE administration pursued the death penalty from DATE to DATE in the high - profile federal prosecution of PERSON for terrorism offences , as well as moving ahead with a military commission system with the power to hand down death sentences .

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

The Government once again reiterated that there was no conclusive evidence that the NORP authorities had in any way participated in the ORG rendition programme by hosting a secret prison for high - value detainees or by any other means .

They agreed with the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that the ORG had accepted that in its establishment of facts and assessment of evidence the co - existence of sufficiently strong , clear and coherent inferences might be considered a proof . Yet in the applicant ’s case no such inferences existed .

In the ORG ’s view , the applicant had adopted a strategy of persuading ORG that the NORP authorities , including the intelligence services and army , had shared the responsibility for gross violations of human rights during the so - called “ rendition programme ” based on the idea of , in his view , striking similarities between the present case and ORG ( cited above ) .

However , in order for the ORG to shift the burden of proof , the applicant was required to establish a prima facie case in favour of his version of events . In the GPE case , that applicant ’s presence on NORP territory at the material time had not been disputed . His detention and interrogation in “ the former GPE ” , together with his surrender to the GPE authorities , had not been refuted either . In contrast , in the instant case no detention facility had been established with certainty , there was no certainty as to the flights on which the applicant had allegedly been transferred to and from GPE , and the exact period of the applicant ’s alleged detention in GPE had remained unclear .

Furthermore , Mr ORG description of the circumstances of his detention and torture had been , as the ORG held , “ very detailed , specific and consistent ” . Conversely , in the present case the ORG was confronted with the applicant ’s incoherent allegations .

As opposed to ORG , where a significant amount of evidence had corroborated the applicant ’s allegations and had given rise to concordant inferences , in the present case no evidence had been put forward , save for the reports which relied on one another . It was true that the ORG had held in the ORG judgment that it might examine a case by “ drawing inferences from the available material and the authorities’ conduct ” and had concluded that the applicant had prevailed in his claims . Yet in the instant case there was no such material and the authorities’ conduct had been , if not beyond any criticism , proactive and had demonstrated good faith . Without any intention to attack and discredit the reports of reputable officials or non - governmental organisations , the ORG insisted that the truth emerged at the end of a process of gathering evidence , failing which all the allegations remained simple claims .

The Government further said that they were fully aware of the ORG ’s standards of proof in cases involving injuries , death or disappearances that occurred in detention in an area within the exclusive control of the authorities of the respondent ORG , if there was prima facie evidence that the ORG might be involved . Nevertheless , they contended that a serious explanation , even if not a final one , had already been provided by the NORP authorities since a serious and independent investigation was still pending before the national authorities .

In view of the foregoing , the Government invited the ORG to hold that there was no prima facie evidence in favour of the applicant ’s version of events and that , therefore , the burden of proof could not be shifted .

They added , however , that they could not give a final version of the facts since the domestic investigation had not yet been completed .

The applicant maintained that he had adduced strong , clear and concordant facts in support of his claims . In contrast , ORG had continued to cover up the truth . The Government had an unprecedented advantage over the applicant . They had all the relevant facts in their possession because they had entered into an agreement to host the secret ORG prison , because they had operationalised that agreement , and because they had covered it all up . In contrast , the applicant , still detained at the remote location of LOC , was gagged from speaking of his treatment in GPE .

The applicant reiterated that he had established more than a prima facie case that he had been detained and tortured in GPE under the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . According to the ORG ’s case - law , the burden of proof now shifted to GPE , particularly because GPE had “ exclusive access to information ” and witnesses who could corroborate or refute the applicant ’s case . However , the Government had failed to provide any such explanation ; instead , they engaged in a pattern and practice of obfuscation and denial with respect to the events complained of . They had done so in the context of unprecedented secrecy maintained by GPE and its partner governments with respect to secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations .

Where , as in the present case , the events at issue lay wholly or in large part within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , the burden of proof could be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation . Where , as in this case , the authorities had failed to provide a convincing explanation and failed to conduct an effective investigation , despite being on notice , at least since DATE , of the fact that GPE had hosted a secret ORG prison , the ORG was entitled to draw inferences adverse to the authorities .

NORP The applicant emphasised that the Court had consistently applied these principles in cases involving injuries , death or disappearances that occurred in detention , including cases where , as here , the Government denied that the individual had been in Government custody at the time of the events at issue . It had also applied these principles where persons had been found dead or injured , or had disappeared , in an area within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State and there had been prima facie evidence that the State might be involved . As the Grand Chamber reiterated in GPE , prima facie evidence could itself be provided by proof in the form of concordant inferences , based on which the burden of proof was shifted to the respondent Government .

Furthermore , in GPE v. GPE ( cited above ) the ORG had established that it was appropriate to adopt a flexible approach towards the evaluation of evidence . ORG had observed that although it had adopted the “ beyond reasonable doubt ” standard of proof , it also “ adopt[ed ] the conclusions that [ were ] , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as [ might ] flow from the facts and the parties submissions ” . Proof could thus “ follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact ” . In addition , in assessing the evidence , the ORG had also taken note of the unique set of constraints on the applicant which had precluded him from testifying about his detention before the ORG and of “ the very nature and extreme secrecy of the ORG operations in the course of the ‘ war on GPE ” .

The applicant argued that the same constraints applied in his case against GPE . Indeed , he had been virtually isolated in ORG and unable to talk publicly about his torture and ill - treatment or even submit a statement to ORG because the GPE authorities had taken the position that his thoughts and memories about his experiences under torture were classified information . Accordingly , they had prohibited him from sharing these experiences with anyone other than his GPE lawyers , who were prevented from revealing what they had been told by their client on pain of criminal sanction .

Despite the extreme secrecy associated with ORG operations and his inability to address the ORG directly , the applicant considered that he had submitted ample evidence in support of his factual claims . Indeed , the documentary and expert evidence offered by him and heard by ORG in the present case was , in his view , akin to the evidence that had been given credence by ORG in GPE v. GPE .

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 . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON , DATE and CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ; ORG , cited above , § CARDINAL ; GPE v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

Nonetheless , in cases where there are conflicting accounts of events , the ORG ’s examination necessarily involves the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree . In such situations the ORG is inevitably confronted when establishing the facts with the same difficulties as those faced by any first - instance court ( see PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - 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 Contracting States’ responsibility under the LAW . 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/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ; 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 , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

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 , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and GPE , § 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 paragraph 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 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG DATE ; and ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) .

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 incommunicado in continuous solitary confinement 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 - CARDINAL ; and paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

As held in GPE v. GPE ( cited above , § CARDINAL ) and as can be seen from the material cited above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , since an unknown date in DATE the applicant has not had contact with the outside world , save the ICRC team in DATE , the military commission ’s members and his GPE counsel . It has also been submitted that the applicant ’s communications with the outside world are virtually non - existent and that his communications with his GPE counsel and his account of experiences in ORG custody are presumptively classified ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The above difficulties involved in gathering and producing evidence in the present case caused by the restrictions on the applicant ’s contact with the outside world and the extreme secrecy surrounding the GPE rendition operations have inevitably had an impact on his ability to plead his case before this 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 .

Consequently , 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 v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL , and PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , LAW ) .

It is also to be noted that while the Government have firmly denied the applicant ’s allegations in so far as they concerned GPE and contested the credibility of various parts of the evidence before the ORG , they have not disputed the fact that he was subjected to secret detention and ill - treatment under the ORG . Nor have they disputed his version of the circumstances preceding his alleged rendition to GPE on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and 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 the countries concerned . As a result , the ORG ’s establishment of the facts and assessment of evidence can not be limited to the events that according to the applicant allegedly took place in GPE but must , in so far as it 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 v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The relevant passages from GPE v. GPE containing the ORG ’s findings of fact are cited above ( see paragraph 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 above ) .

It is alleged that before being rendered by the ORG on CARDINAL DATE from ORG to GPE on board NCARDINALVM the applicant had been detained in other ORG secret detention facilities abroad ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

In GPE v. GPE ( cited above , LAW and CARDINAL ) the ORG held as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In the light of that accumulated evidence , there can be no doubt that :

CARDINAL ) NORP the NCARDINALP , also known as “ Guantánamo Express ” , a Gulfstream V with capacity for CARDINAL passengers but usually configured for CARDINAL , arrived in PERSON on DATE at TIME from GPE , GPE . It stayed on the runway for TIME and then departed for GPE , GPE .

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

CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE on the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALP. ”

Referring to this point in time , the DATE ORG states that from DATE “ the ORG transferred PERSON to CARDINAL different ORG detention facilities before he was transferred to GPE military custody on DATE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It further states that in DATE the ORG arranged for a “ temporary patch ” , which meant placing the applicant and another detainee – PERSON – in a country whose name was redacted and that by an unspecified – redacted – date in DATE both of them were transferred out of that country to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

There can therefore be no doubt that between his transfer from GPE on DATE and his transfer to ORG on an unspecified DATE in DATE the applicant was for some time held by the ORG in another country – the first CARDINAL out of CARDINAL in which he would be secretly detained DATE and DATE .

Mr GPE testified that the country in question was identifiable as GPE and that on DATE the plane NCARDINALP had taken the applicant and PERSON from GPE to GPE , GPE to a facility that at that time had been let to the ORG by their NORP counterparts . He stated that the applicant had remained there until DATE , the date on which he had been transported on plane NCARDINALP from Rabat to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The NCARDINALP rendition circuit of DATE was analysed in detail in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , where the ORG held that on CARDINAL 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 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 flew from Rabat to ORG on TIME DATE , landing there in TIME DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

According to the ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE , NCARDINALP ’s itinerary was PERSON airport in GPE , GPE - Constanţa - Rabat but the airport at which it landed in GPE was FAC in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . This information is consistent with evidence heard from Mr GPE , who in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE testified that “ this particular flight circuit was again disguised by dummy flight planning although significantly not in respect of GPE ” and that “ since this visit to PERSON was comprised solely of a pick - up of the remaining detainees , the ORG declared PERSON as a destination openly and instead disguised its onward destinations of GPE and PERSON , hence demonstrating that the methodology of disguised flight planning continued for the second NORP site in GPE , GPE ” ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP 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 above ) .

In the light of the material in its possession , the ORG finds no counter evidence capable of casting doubt on the accuracy of the expert ’s 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 ) on DATE on board the rendition plane NCARDINALP the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE , GPE to GPE , GPE ;

( CARDINAL ) from DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in GPE at a facility used by the ORG ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE on board the rendition plane NCARDINALP the applicant was transferred by the ORG from Rabat to ORG ; and

( CARDINAL ) the applicant was detained in ORG until a CARDINAL - digit date in DATE ( redacted in the DATE ORG ) , then transferred by the ORG to another detention facility elsewhere .

It is alleged that a ORG secret detention facility operated in GPE from DATE to DATE , when it was closed following the publication of PERSON report on ORG overseas clandestine prisons in LOC in ORG on DATE ( see , in particular , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The Government denied that a ORG detention facility had ever existed on GPE ’s territory ( see , in particular , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG notes at the outset that the following facts are either uncontested or have been confirmed by the ORG ’s findings in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE and flight data from numerous sources , including the documents produced by the respondent Government :

( a ) On DATE plane NCARDINALP arrived in GPE , GPE en route from GPE , left on DATE for GPE and , having indicated in its flight plan GPE as its destination , in fact landed at FAC . On DATE the plane took off from GPE for DATE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , LAW and CARDINAL ; and CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL above ) .

( b ) On DATE plane NCARDINALHC , having indicated in its flight plan FAC in GPE as its destination , in fact landed at FAC in GPE and on DATE took off from GPE for GPE .

( c ) On DATE plane NCARDINALAB arrived in GPE at CARDINAL and on DATE , on TIME , left for GPE ;

( d ) On TIME both NCARDINALHC and FAC were in the same airport in GPE between CARDINAL:CARDINAL ( NCARDINALHC ’s landing ) and TIME ( NCARDINALAB ’s departure ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

It has not been disputed by the ORG that the ORG publication was the first one in which NORP countries were mentioned in the context of the HVD Programme ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

It was followed by subsequent , more specific reports .

On DATE ORG , in the DATE HRW Statement , indicated GPE and GPE as the ORG accomplices in the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

That statement was followed by the HRW List of DATE which referred to “ ghost prisoners ” , including the applicant , considered to be possibly held in secret detention by the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

DATE , on DATE , an ORG report named GPE and GPE as countries hosting ORG secret prisons and listed the names of CARDINAL top ORG terrorist suspects , including the applicant , being held in ORG custody . It also stated that , according to the ORG sources , the GPE authorities had “ scrambled to get all the suspects off the NORP soil before Secretary of ORG PERSON arrived there DATE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Nor has it been disputed that the above disclosures soon triggered a number of international inquiries into the ORG rendition and secret detention operations and allegations of torture and ill - treatment of prisoners . The multiple investigations by international governmental organisations started with ORG inquiry under LAW and ORG , followed by ORG PERSON , the DATE ORG and the investigative work of ORG Commissioner for Human Rights carried out until DATE . Also , in that context , the ICRC independently prepared its earlier , confidential reports and the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) . As a follow - up to ORG , ORG still continues to investigate the issue of the ORG secret prisons in LOC ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The initial DATE reports drawn up in the framework of the inquiries conducted by the international governmental organisations confirmed consistently , albeit in various terms , that there was at least a strong suspicion that a ORG clandestine detention site had operated in GPE .

( a ) The DATE Marty Report stated that , while the factual elements gathered so far had not provided definitive evidence of secret detention centres , GPE was “ thus far the only ORG member state to be located on CARDINAL of the rendition circuits ” which bore “ all the characteristics of a detainee drop - off point ” . The rendition circuit in question was executed on DATE by plane NCARDINALP which , before landing in GPE , on DATE rendered Mr PERSON from GPE to the ORG ” black site ” in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above and GPE , cited above , § § DATE and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

( b ) The DATE ORG affirmed that there was “ now enough evidence to state that secret detention facilities run by the ORG [ had ] existed in LOC from DATE , in particular in GPE and GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It stated that “ GPE [ had been ] developed into a site in which more detainees were transferred only as the ORG [ had ] expanded ” . It was Senator PERSON ’s understanding that “ the NORP “ black site ” [ had been ] incorporated into the programme in DATE , attained its greatest significance in DATE and operated until DATE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The report also referred to the “ clear inconsistencies in the flight data ” provided by various NORP sources , when compared with data gathered by ORG independently . The disagreement between these sources was found to be “ too fundamental and widespread to be explained away by simple administrative glitches , or even by in - flight changes of destinations by Pilots - in - Command , which were communicated to CARDINAL authority but not to another ” . In sum , the report stated that “ presently there exist[ed ] no truthful account of detainee transfer flights to GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Senator PERSON in the DATE and DATE ORG , as well as in his affidavit of CARDINAL DATE and testimony given at the fact - finding hearing before the ORG explained comprehensively the methodology adopted in his inquiry and the sources of information on the basis of which the respective findings had been made ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

( c ) The Fava Report expressed “ serious concern ” CARDINAL stopovers made by the ORG - operated aircraft at NORP airports , which on most occasions had come from or been bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits .

It was also found that CARDINAL flight plans had been filed with inconsistencies as they had indicated a landing airport which had not corresponded with the subsequent take - off airport ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Moreover , ORG identified CARDINAL aircraft with multiple stopovers in GPE that already at that early stage of the inquiries into the ORG had been known to have been involved in the ORG rendition operations .

Among those aircraft was NCARDINALVM , conclusively identified as having been used for the rendition of Mr PERSON aka PERSON from GPE to GPE on DATE ( see also PERSON and PERSON , cited above , § § DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) and NCARDINALP conclusively identified as having been used for the rendition of Mr GPE from GPE to GPE on DATE ( see GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The report also listed flights from suspicious locations that stopped over in GPE in DATE . The first flight NCARDINALP , from GPE , GPE to GPE , en route to LOC , took place on DATE , the last one , NCARDINALHC , from GPE to GPE , took place on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The conclusion in ORG was that it could not exclude , “ based only on the statements made by NORP authorities to ORG delegation to GPE , the possibility that GPE secret services [ had ] operated in GPE and that no definite evidence ha[d ] been provided to contradict any of the allegations concerning the running of a secret detention facility on NORP soil ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

With reference to that conclusion , PERSON testified at the fact - finding hearing that “ the conclusion we reached was a very strong suspicion that [ a ORG detention facility ] existed , not certainty – there was no smoking gun ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The Fava Report relied on comprehensive materials from multiple sources , comprising those collected during the TDIP delegation ’s visits to the countries concerned , including GPE , extensive flight data , expert evidence , analysis of specific cases of several victims of the ORG extraordinary rendition , interviews with the victims and their lawyers and material acquired in the context of meetings with the national authorities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The DATE ORG , referring to GPE , mentioned that the analysis of complex aeronautical data had demonstrated the circuit flown by NCARDINALP in DATE and that the experts had not been able to identify “ any definite evidence of a detainee transfer into GPE ” taking place prior to that flight ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Subsequent reports , which were based on fuller knowledge of the ORG emerging from the ORG documents declassified in DATE and DATE and took into account progress in the research into rendition flights , contained more categorical conclusions .

( a ) Mr Hammarberg , in his dossier of DATE addressed to ORG , stated that “ sufficient evidence ha[d ] now been amassed to allow us to consider the existence of a ORG ” black site ” in GPE as a proven fact , and to affirm that serious human rights abuses [ had taken ] place there ” . According to PERSON findings , the opening of the ORG prison , codenamed “ Bright Light ” and the start of the ORG detention operations in GPE was marked by the plane NCARDINALP landing in GPE on TIME DATE . The physical location was identified as the ORG building in GPE . The dossier included , in chronological order , a list of CARDINAL disguised rendition flights into GPE in respect of which “ dummy ” flight plans featuring ORG had been filed , starting from the NCARDINALP flight on DATE and ending with the NCARDINALJB flight on CARDINAL DATE . No specific date of closure of the detention site was given ; paragraph CARDINAL of the dossier indicated that it had operated for “ a period of DATE ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . In response to the ORG ’s question regarding this point , PERSON explained that at that time their research had not managed to establish the precise dates for the closure of the NORP “ black site ” nor for the applicant ’s transfer from GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

PERSON , in his written response to the ORG ’s questions , gave an account of the sources and methodology on which he relied in his findings . The conclusions as to the operation of a secret ORG ” black site ” in GPE were based on “ a number of different sources which were crossreferenced and not on CARDINAL piece of evidence in isolation ” . This included among other things , official GPE documents , flight records and aeronautical data amassed from diverse entities across the global aviation sector ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

( b ) The DATE PERSON , which in addition to extensive flight data had been based on an analysis of a large amount of new material disclosed in the DATE ORG , stated that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that a facility in GPE had been used by the ORG to hold prisoners , that the first prisoners had been transferred to this facility in DATE and that the last prisoners had been transferred out of this facility in DATE . The dossier included a list of QUANTITY rendition circuits through GPE , the first of which was executed by NCARDINALP on DATE , the last of which was executed on DATE and involved CARDINAL planes NCARDINALHC ( from GPE to GPE ) and LAW ( from GPE to GPE ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

Furthermore , in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE Senator PERSON and Mr GPE , referring in their ORG presentation to the “ final rendition circuit ” through GPE executed by NCARDINALP , testified that this particular circuit had marked the closure of the ORG ” black site ” in GPE and the opening of the ORG ’s second secret detention site in LOC – located in GPE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At the fact - finding hearing held in the present case the experts heard by the ORG confirmed in clear and categorical terms that a secret detention facility had operated in GPE in the period indicated by the applicant . They stated that the NCARDINALP flight on DATE had marked the opening of the site and that a “ double - plane switch ” circuit involving CARDINAL planes , identified as NCARDINALHC and ORG had indicated its closure , prompted by the publication of ORG article referred to above ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the same categorical terms they identified the ORG detention facility located in GPE as the one referred to in the DATE ORG as “ ORG ” ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

( a ) Senator PERSON and Mr PERSON in their ORG presentation , in support of the above conclusions , referred to the extensive flight data and their correlation , as well as to the DATE ORG . In particular , Mr GPE in connection with several specific references in that report stated that the code name “ FAC ” in the report corresponded in such “ precise and extensive detail ” to other multiple data concerning GPE that “ GPE , its territory , its airspace , its detention facility , [ was ] inseparable from ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL above )

( b ) Mr Black stated that it was “ clear , beyond reasonable doubt that there was a ORG detention facility in GPE ” and that he was convinced on “ a wide array of different types of evidence ” that it operated from DATE until DATE . He testified that there was no doubt that the flight in DATE which had been a CARDINAL - plane switch taking prisoners to GPE – had signalled the end of the NORP site and that that flight had come within TIME after the existence of the site had been revealed in ORG article . He added that the DATE ORG was very clear that at that point everyone who had been remaining in GPE had been “ shipped out to GPE ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In his testimony , he also mentioned specific HVDs , including the applicant , who had been detained in GPE DATE , saying that “ the fact that those individuals [ had been ] held in GPE at various points DATE [ was ] absolutely beyond reasonable doubt , there [ could not ] be any alternative narrative to that that [ made ] any sense ” . He further stated that “ ORG [ was ] the site that fulfil[ed ] , in terms of its operating times , the flight paths that we [ knew ] to have been connected to prisoner movements and to the ORG rendition programme . ORG [ was ] the one which correlate[d ] precisely with those flight paths that our research [ had ] discovered , [ had ] reconstructed ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The DATE ORG includes several references to ORG . To begin with , the report confirms that ORG detainees were transferred to ORG in a country whose name was redacted “ in DATE ” . It further confirms that the site still operated in “ DATE ” , as well as in DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) and that Mr PERSON was held there in DATE and DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

Finally , it indicates that ORG was closed “ after publication of the ORG article ” , following the pressure from the country concerned , which demanded the closure within TIME which , although redacted in the text , clearly comprised DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG observes that this indication in theory could mean any time DATE . However , in reality , given that the ORG had to secure a safe , secret transfer of possibly several detainees by air to another consenting country , such demand could not be dealt with abruptly and immediately and , by the nature of things , inevitably required some preparation and handling of logistical problems . According to the DATE ORG , the “ ORG transferred ... the remaining ORG detainees out of the facility shortly thereafter ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Having regard to the fact that ORG article was published on DATE , the dates on which the transfer could realistically have been carried out DATE that is to say , within the range of TIME – had to be situated in the short period from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . This coincides exactly with the flight identified by the experts as the CARDINAL marking the closure of “ FAC ” in GPE , namely NCARDINALHC from GPE to GPE , executed on CARDINAL DATE ( see also paragraph LAW above ) .

Furthermore , all the materials in the ORG ’s possession , including the list of CARDINAL “ suspicious flights ” produced by the Government unambiguously demonstrate that a series of ORG - associated aircraft landings at FAC started on DATE with NCARDINALP and ended on CARDINAL DATE with NCARDINALHC . Markedly , these QUANTITY particular flight circuits were disguised by the so - called “ dummy flight ORG a practice that , as described by the experts and analysed by ORG in its previous judgments concerning the ORG rendition operations in GPE , consisted in filling false flight plans that indicated a route which the planes did not , or even intend to , fly . Both aircraft ’s flight plans indicated GPE as their destination but in fact they landed at and took off from FAC ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , with references to GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , and CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ; see also PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The Government acknowledged that on DATE the flight plan for NCARDINALP , initially indicating GPE as its destination , had been changed to FAC when the plane had been en route ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , they did not see how the change of flight plans executed by the flight operator – a change on which the NORP authorities had no influence – could be indicative of their complicity in the ORG rendition operations or , still less , of the existence of a ORG “ black site ” in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

Addressing the Government ’s arguments , the ORG finds it appropriate to reiterate certain findings concerning the operation of the ORG - associated flights in GPE emerging from the material in the case file .

( a ) As already noted above ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG referred to CARDINAL stopovers made by the ORG - operated aircraft at NORP airports during the relevant period . Significantly , most stopovers ( CARDINAL ) and take - offs ( CARDINAL ) found suspicious took place at GPE airports . Several of those flights are included in the ORG ’s list of CARDINAL “ suspicious flights ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . ORG also identified CARDINAL different ORG aircraft that landed in GPE at the material time and referred to CARDINAL inconsistent flight plans , concerning , among others , the NCARDINALHC flight on DATE . All these plans indicated destinations filed for GPE or GPE ; however , the aircraft real destination was FAC , at which those flights in fact landed and from which they took off subsequently ( see paragraphs QUANTITY and CARDINAL above ) .

( b ) PERSON dossier for ORG contained a – non - exhaustive – list of the most significant CARDINAL flights into GPE , starting from NCARDINALP on DATE . Destinations for all of them were disguised by the “ dummy ” flight planning . All bore the characteristics of “ detainee drop - offs ” , i.e. transportation of ORG prisoners into the country . All those planes are on the list of CARDINAL “ suspicious flights ” furnished by the Government ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

( c ) The DATE PERSON identified CARDINAL rendition missions linking GPE to other ORG prison host countries or to known or suspected prisoner transfers . According to that report , the first such mission was executed by NCARDINALP on DATE , the last by NCARDINALHC on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The list of CARDINAL rendition missions in the DATE PERSON overlaps with the ORG ’s list of CARDINAL “ suspicious flights ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

( d ) In all the inquiries conducted by the international governmental and non - governmental organisations , which were extensively referred to above , most planes included in the ORG ’s list have been conclusively and definitely identified as carrying out the ORG rendition missions ( see CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; CARDINAL ; CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

( e ) It emerges from the comparison of the list of CARDINAL “ suspicious flights ” with the above reports identifying the aircraft associated with the ORG ’s transportation of prisoners that DATE and DATE there was a continued , steady and concentrated flow of those planes through FAC . According to the material produced by the ORG themselves , during that period CARDINAL ORG flights arrived at FAC and CARDINAL were recorded by the NORP authorities as landing at FAC . The ORG flights into GPE arrived at fairly regular intervals of CARDINAL see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

Considering the material referred to above as a 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 ORG , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and paragraphs CARDINAL - 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 firm , albeit general , denial that the facts as presented by the applicant and disclosed in the international inquiries – to begin with ORG and PERSON investigative work DATE never took place or were grossly distorted to GPE ’s disadvantage , they have not offered any cogent reasons for the series of landings of ORG - associated aircraft at GPE DATE and DATE ( see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

Likewise , the Government have not produced any evidence capable of contradicting the findings of the international inquiries and 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 expert evidence to the effect that the ORG prison referred to in the DATE ORG as “ ORG ” was located in GPE ( see also and compare with GPE v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

In that context , the ORG can not but note that all the international inquiries and other reports challenged by the Government were based on extensive , meticulous work which was done by the experts and politicians of the highest integrity and competence and whose only aim and mission was to reveal the facts and establish the truth about what had occurred in LOC during the ORG rendition operations . Their work was often impeded by the extreme secrecy surrounding the ORG operations , the uncooperative attitude of the national authorities and the lack of access to the necessary information – information which was revealed only gradually , over DATE and which still remains incomplete due to the classification of essential documents , in particular the full version of the DATE ORG . It is worth noting that the inquiries conducted in DATE did not have the benefit of access to the ORG declassified documents , which were released in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and which provided an important insight into the fate of specific HVDs , including Mr PERSON , with such details as dates of detainees’ transfers between the ORG “ black sites ” and interrogation schedules .

As regards the Government ’s challenge to the impartiality and credibility of Reprieve , based on its involvement in ongoing investigations into ORG rendition and secret detention and case work regarding ORG prisoners ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG finds no ground whatsoever to consider that Reprieve and its experts , who have DATE as for instance Mr Black – also been involved in ORG inquiry , lack objectivity in representing the facts concerning the operation of the ORG in LOC and the plight of detainees , including the applicant .

In so far as the Government can be seen as impliedly contesting the credibility of evidence from other experts heard at the fact - finding hearing ( see CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the ORG would wish to underline that PERSON , Senator PERSON and Mr GPE already gave evidence in LOC GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE . ORG , in its examination of those cases , relied heavily on their testimonies considering them to be one of the most important parts of the evidence and finding them fully reliable and credible ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL- CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . Furthermore , in ORG considered the expert report from Mr GPE to be “ compelling evidence ” which was duly taken into account in its establishment of the facts in the case ( see PERSON , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Consequently , in the ORG ’s eyes , there is nothing in the ORG ’s submission that would be capable of shedding the doubt on the integrity and dependability of the experts whose testimony was taken in the present case .

The ORG also argued that the fact that the sources relied on by the applicant , including the DATE ORG and PERSON dossier , had given different indications as to the exact location of the alleged “ black site ” in GPE deprived his allegations of credibility . Referring in particular to the ORG building , they relied on witness R ’s statements obtained in the investigation denying that this location had , or could ever have been , used for the ORG prison ( see CARDINAL and DATE above ) .

The ORG does not find these arguments convincing .

It is true that the applicant , relying on the press disclosures , indicated the ORG building as a probable ORG prison . However , considering the secrecy of the ORG operations it can not be realistically expected that this kind of indication will be absolutely certain , unless the governments concerned decide to disclose such locations and formally “ officialise ” the information circulating in the public domain . In that regard , the ORG would note in passing that the likelihood of the ORG building having hosted the ORG facility has also been considered in the inquiry conducted by ORG ; however , the NORP authorities did not enable the ORG delegation to visit the site during their fact - finding mission in DATE ( see paragraphs FAC - CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG will not speculate on that likelihood . Nor is it necessary for the purposes of its ruling to establish where the ORG facility was exactly located . Given the coherent and unrefuted evidence corroborating the applicant ’s allegations as to the existence of the ORG “ black site ” in GPE , the fact that he did not state its precise location does not undermine the credibility of his allegations .

In view of the foregoing , the ORG ’s objection to the credibility of the evidence and sources relied on by the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) can not be upheld .

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

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

( b ) the facility operated from DATE and its opening was marked by flight NCARDINALP which took off from GPE , GPE on DATE and , having disguised its destination by indicating FAC in GPE , landed at FAC on DATE ; and

( c ) the facility was closed on the NORP authorities’ demand and its closure was marked by flight NCARDINALHC which took off from GPE , GPE on DATE and , having disguised its destination by indicating FAC in GPE , landed at FAC and on DATE took off for GPE , GPE .

It is alleged that the applicant was transferred to GPE from ORG on board NCARDINALVM on DATE and that he was detained at ORG in GPE , also codenamed “ Bright Light ” or “ FAC until DATE or , at the latest , until DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The ORG firmly contested this ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

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

The applicant , who for DATE on end was held in detention conditions specifically designed to isolate and disorientate a person 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 , 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 appeared in a record of persons on board filed with any official institution ( see 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 and 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 CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG observes that the following facts either are not disputed or have also been confirmed by flight data from numerous sources , including the documents produced by the respondent Government :

( a ) On DATE plane NCARDINALVM , having indicated in its flight plans FAC in GPE as its destination , in fact landed in FAC in GPE and took off from there on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;

( b ) that on DATE plane PERSON , having indicated in its flight plans FAC in GPE as its destination , in fact landed at FAC in GPE and took off from GPE for GPE on DATE ;

( c ) that on DATE plane PERSON landed in GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL and stayed there until TIME , at which time it departed for FAC ;

( d ) that on DATE both PERSON and PERSON were in the same airport in GPE between PERSON ( PERSON ’s landing ) and CARDINAL ( NCARDINALWH ’s departure ) ;

( e ) that on DATE PERSON , having indicated in its flight plans GPE , GPE as its destination , in fact landed at FAC in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

As regards the rendition circuit of CARDINAL - CARDINAL DATE , ORG would reiterate that it has already been established that :

- on DATE NCARDINALHC , having disguised its destination as GPE , in fact landed at FAC and took off from there for GPE , arriving there in TIME on DATE ;

- NCARDINALAB arrived in GPE DATE , and on TIME , left for GPE ; and

- on TIME both NCARDINALHC and FAC were in the same airport in GPE between CARDINAL:CARDINAL and CARDINAL:CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG has also established that after his transfers from GPE to GPE and from GPE to ORG the applicant was detained in ORG until an unspecified CARDINAL - digit date in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As noted above , the DATE ORG states that by that date , “ all CARDINAL ORG detainees were transferred from ORG to other ORG detention facilities ” ( see CARDINAL and QUANTITY above , with further references ) .

Mr GPE , in his testimony , explained that the use of the word “ facilities ” in the plural in the DATE ORG was significant in the context of the applicant ’s detention given that , as the very same report established , following his transfer from GPE , he had been held at CARDINAL different ORG “ black sites ” ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Mr PERSON could not , therefore , have been transferred from ORG back to GPE . Mr GPE further explained that at the relevant time there had been CARDINAL distinct detainee transfers from ORG ; the first which had taken some detainees to Rabat on CARDINAL March CARDINAL and the second which had taken the remaining ones on plane NCARDINALVM to GPE , via a stopover in GPE , on DATE . This , he said , was the sole outward flight linking ORG with GPE . Also , it emerged from the DATE ORG and cables regarding the applicant ’s treatment that he found himself at ORG in DATE and in DATE . Mr ORG concluded that , in order for the applicant to be at ORG or “ GPE ” by that time , he had to have been brought to GPE on flight NCARDINALVM on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

Moreover , in respect of that flight the ORG had recourse to its systematic practice of disguised flight planning which , as the expert stated , “ in fact became a tell - tale sign of rendition or detainee transfer activity on such flights ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Mr Black stated that he was aware of CARDINAL possible flights that could have taken the applicant into GPE and NCARDINALVM was CARDINAL of them . He indicated that there had been a potential other flight that had occurred in DATE . While it was known for a fact that the applicant had been in GPE after DATE and in DATE , there were also indications that he had been held in GPE before , in DATE . That led Mr Black to prefer , of these CARDINAL possibilities , the DATE flight as being the more likely of the CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The Government acknowledged that the flight plan for NCARDINALVM , initially indicating ORG as its destination , had been changed to GPE , FAC when the plane had been en route but did not consider that this element could confirm the applicant ’s secret detention in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They produced documents issued by the RAS at FAC in connection with the NCARDINALVM landing on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

As in respect of other allegedly “ suspicious ” flights , the Government asserted that the flight had been of a “ private and non - commercial nature ” and had not been executed in connection with the HVD Programme ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

However , this assertion does not seem to be supported by the materials gathered in the present case . To the contrary , the ORG finds that in addition to the expert evidence referred to above , there is other abundant evidence to the effect that on DATE plane NCARDINALVM executed a rendition mission to GPE with the purpose of “ dropping off ” detainees from ORG .

In that regard , the ORG observes that since DATE the findings of the international inquiries have clearly associated NCARDINALVM with the ORG rendition operations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL- CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . As already noted above , NCARDINALVM was conclusively identified as the plane used earlier for the rendition of PERSON otherwise known as PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The former ORG Commissioner for Human Rights dossier for ORG included that flight among disguised rendition flights into GPE , bearing the character of detainee “ drop - off ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The same dossier listed the applicant among HVDs who had been brought to a ORG “ black site ” in GPE and indicated DATE as the date of his transfer to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The DATE PERSON indicated flight NCARDINALVM on DATE among the missions carried out under rendition contracts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

That flight is also listed among CARDINAL “ suspicious flights ” in the document produced by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

As to the applicant ’s rendition by the ORG from GPE , the experts gave DATE and CARDINAL DATE as CARDINAL possible dates of the applicant ’s transfer ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

Mr PERSON described in detail the ORG “ plane - switch ” operation that , according to him , had taken place in the course of the flight circuit on CARDINAL DATE and involved CARDINAL aircraft : PERSON and PERSON . On this premise , on DATE the applicant was taken on board PERSON from ORG to GPE and , subsequently , on board PERSON to GPE to a ORG ” black site ” in GPE , referred to as “ Detention Site Violet ” in the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

PERSON considered both dates as probable , with the DATE transfer of the applicant being more likely ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Having regard to all the various documentary and oral evidence referred to above , the ORG is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence in favour of the applicant ’s version of the events and that the burden of proof should shift to the Government .

Yet again in the ORG ’s view the Government have failed to give any convincing grounds to explain why the evidence considered above can not support the applicant ’s allegations . They asserted that the applicant ’s version of events should be rejected as it was incoherent and that in his account of the facts there had been inconsistencies regarding the dates , circumstances and the exact period of his alleged detention in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG does not share the ORG ’s assessment .

While it is true that , with the passage of time , the applicant adduced newly disclosed facts relevant for his complaints or corrected the dates initially given for his detention ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) , this does not by itself render his version of events inconsistent or incredible . In that context the ORG would again refer to the fact that since his capture in DATE the applicant has been continually prevented from giving any direct account of his fate even to the counsel representing him before the Court ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

Furthermore , having regard to the above evidence demonstrating clearly , consistently and conclusively the chronology of the events preceding the applicant ’s transfer to GPE , his transfer to GPE on DATE and his presence at FAC located in GPE in DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) , as well as expert evidence confirming that there were DATE and only CARDINAL – possible dates on which he could be taken by the ORG out of GPE , the ORG does not find it indispensable to determine on which specific date the transfer occurred . It is certain and beyond any reasonable doubt that the applicant , once detained at ORG and , as confirmed by the DATE ORG and the experts , still present there DATE , must have been transferred out of it at some later point before or when the site was definitely closed on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The experts’ conclusions are founded on in - depth analysis of extensive international aviation data , contractual documents pertaining to rendition missions executed by the air companies used by the ORG and large amount of data released by the GPE authorities , including the ORG . On this basis , they gave a time - frame which is sufficiently accurate for the ORG to conclude that the applicant must have been taken out of GPE either on DATE or on DATE to CARDINAL of the – at the time DATE remaining ORG detention facilities , referred to in the DATE ORG as ORG and ORG .

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

( a ) On DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG from ORG to GPE on board NCARDINALVM .

( b ) From DATE to DATE or , at the latest , CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE code - named “ ORG ” according to the DATE ORG .

( c ) On DATE on board PERSON or , at the latest , on DATE , on board NCARDINALHC via a double - plane switch the applicant was transferred by the ORG out of GPE to one of the CARDINAL remaining ORG detention facilities , code - named ORG and ORG according to the DATE ORG .

It is alleged that during his secret detention in GPE the applicant was subjected to torture and other forms of treatment prohibited by LAW . The Government have not addressed this issue .

The ORG observes that , in contrast to PERSON v. GPE where the treatment to which the applicant was subjected by the ORG during his detention in GPE could be established with certainty owing to the ORG ’s declassified materials depicting in graphic detail the torture inflicted on him in the course of the interrogations ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , in the present case there is no evidence demonstrating that at ORG in GPE he was subjected to EITs in connection with interrogations ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

As regards recourse to harsh interrogation techniques at the relevant time , the DATE ORG mentions 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 ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In respect of the applicant , the report states that in the “ final years ” of his detention “ most of the intelligence requirements for LOC involved showing [ him ] photographs ” . Those “ debriefings ” were suspended in DATE apparently because of the low value of intelligence obtained from him and “ because debriefings often were the ‘ ORG for his outbursts ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Other heavily redacted passages in the report speak of “ feeding him rectally ” , which resulted from his “ short - lived hunger strike ” at some unspecified time in DATE . It is also mentioned that in DATE he underwent a psychological assessment in the context of “ management challenges ” posed to the ORG by psychological problems experienced by the detainees “ who had been held in austere conditions and in solitary confinement ” . The applicant ’s assessment was used by the ORG in discussions on “ establishing an endgame ” for the HVD Programme ( see CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In DATE the ORG expressed concern regarding the applicant ’s “ continued state of depression and uncooperative attitude ” . DATE a psychologist established that the applicant was “ on the verge of a breakdown ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

According to the experts , even though the applicant was in all likelihood no longer interrogated with the use of the EITs , he did , as Mr GPE stated “ purely by virtue of the conditions in which he [ had been ] held ” suffer ill - treatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON added that it was clear that the applicant , in particular when he had been in GPE , was experiencing serious psychological problems as a result of the treatment he had received ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

As regards the ORG ’s establishment of the facts of the case , the detailed rules governing the 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 DATE to DATE or CARDINAL DATE . ORG therefore finds it established beyond any 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 observes that the 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 paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The DATE ORG , in the chapter giving details as to the establishment of ORG , states that in DATE ( redacted the text ) in DATE the ORG “ entered into an agreement ” with the country concerned “ to host a ORG detention facility ” .

While the terms of that agreement have not been disclosed , it appears from subsequent passages that , in order to demonstrate to the country ’s authority ( or person ) whose name was redacted and to “ the highest levels of the Country ... government ” that the GPE authorities “ deeply appreciate[d ] their cooperation and support for the detention program ” , the ORG station in the country was invited by their ORG “ to identify ways to support the ” – again redacted DATE country ’s bodies ( presumably , or activities ) by financial means , defined as a “ subsidy ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The requested subsidy which was received in appreciation of “ cooperation and support ” amounted to a sum ( redacted in the text ) that was a multiple of CARDINAL ; in fact , the amount which was initially put on DATE in the report ’s words – “ wish list ” presented on behalf of the country by the ORG station was later increased by a further ( redacted ) multiple of CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The fact that such financial rewards were , as a matter of the general policy and practice , offered to the authorities of countries hosting ORG “ black sites ” is also 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 ) .

In that context , the ORG would also wish to refer to its findings regarding the national authorities’ knowledge of the ORG HVD Programme in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE and the issue of the alleged existence of a bilateral agreement between GPE and the GPE on the setting up and running of a secret ORG prison . In that case , the ORG did not find it necessary for its examination of the case to establish whether such agreement or agreements existed and if so , in what format or what was specifically provided therein . It did , however , consider it inconceivable that the rendition aircraft could have crossed NORP airspace , landed at and departed from a NORP airport and that the ORG could have occupied the LOC in GPE without some kind of pre - existing arrangement enabling the ORG operation in GPE to be first prepared and then executed ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The same conclusion is valid in respect of GPE ; moreover , in the present case it has been reinforced by evidence from the DATE ORG , unambiguously demonstrating the existence of a bilateral agreement between GPE and the GPE on hosting ORG on NORP territory .

The ORG would also add that the above - cited sections of the DATE ORG further support the conclusions of the DATE ORG , stating that “ the key arrangements for ORG clandestine operations in LOC were secured on a bilateral level ” , that “ the ORG brokered ‘ operating ORG with ORG and GPE to hold its high - value detainees ... in secret detention facilities on their respective territories ” and that “ GPE and GPE agreed to provide the LOC in which these facilities were established , the highest degrees of physical security and secrecy , and steadfast guarantees of non - interference ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

In his affidavit made DATE , on DATE , Senator PERSON stated that his “ convictions regarding GPE ’s participation in the ORG ’s ORG were unambiguous and unwavering ” , adding that “ up to the present day , I stand by CARDINAL of the factual findings I delivered in DATE PACE Reports ” and that his “ certitude that a ORG ‘ black ORG existed in GPE [ had ] only increased since that time ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At the fact - finding hearing he added that , based on “ extremely precise testimony ” obtained in the course of his inquiry , the NORP officials “ must have known that the ORG used their territory for transfers of prisoners in the context of the war on terror ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above )

In that regard , the ORG notes that the DATE ORG listed by name several individual high - office holders who “ knew about , authorised and stand accountable for GPE ’s role in the ORG ’s operation of ‘ outoftheatre’ secret detention facilities on NORP territory , from DATE to DATE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

CARDINAL of those identified in the report , namely former President of GPE , PERSON and his former ORG , PERSON Talpeş DATE made public statements relating to the ORG rendition operation in their interviews given to ORG in DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In DATE , in the first ORG publication , Mr PERSON was reported as saying that “ there were CARDINAL or CARDINAL locations in GPE at which the ORG probably held persons who were subjected to inhuman treatment ” . It was further reported that “ had , from DATE , continued discussions with officials of the ORG and the GPE military about a more intense cooperation ” and that in that context “ it was agreed that the ORG could carry out its own activities in certain locations ” . He did not know where they were and “ GPE was , expressly , not interested in what the ORG was doing there ” . PERSON also told PERSON that in DATE and DATE he had informed President PERSON that the ORG had carried out “ certain activities ” on NORP territory ; at that time “ he did not think that the ORG could possibly torture captives ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP In DATE , in the second ORG publication , Mr PERSON was reported as stating that “ around the turn of the year DATE , our allies asked us for a site ” and that he , as Head of ORG , had in principle granted that request but the details had been taken care of by PERSON . He added that “ we [ had not interfered ] with the activities of the GPE on this site ” .

ORG further reported that Mr PERSON had confirmed Mr ORG statements , adding that at DATE he had received a request from a representative of the ORG in GPE for premises , which the ORG needed for its own activities . He had arranged for a building in GPE to be given to the ORG . The building was used by the ORG from DATE and no longer existed ; PERSON would not reveal its location ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In that context , it is also to be noted that the DATE EP Resolution states that PERSON admitted on record to the ORG delegation that he had been fully aware of the ORG ’s presence on NORP territory , acknowledging that he had given permission to ‘ ORG a government building to the ORG ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Referring to Mr PERSON ’s and Mr Talpeş’ interviews in ORG , the Government argued that subsequently their initially ambiguous statements had been clarified to the effect that there had been no cooperation and no complicity in the ORG rendition and secret detention operations on the part of GPE . In that regard , the ORG also relied on evidence from witnesses obtained in the criminal investigation conducted in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG does not share this assessment .

It is true that certain NORP officials , for instance Y and Z , who testified in the investigation in DATE , denied receiving any such request or having any knowledge of the existence of the ORG prisons in the country ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

Yet in that regard the ORG can not but note that witness Z in his testimony given on DATE nevertheless confirmed that “ ORG officials [ had ] asked the NORP authorities to offer some locations on NORP territory to be used for actions of combating the international terrorist threats by the representatives of the ORG , on the same pattern as that used in the other ORG Member GPE ” and that “ finally CARDINAL single location [ had been ] offered ” . It was understood “ at that stage , in DATE , that it should be an office building in GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The accounts given by PERSON and Mr ORG in their interviews and Mr Talpeş’ admission to ORG delegation match the disclosures in the DATE ORG , in particular regarding the date of the agreement to host a ORG secret detention site ( DATE ) , the fact that the NORP authorities were asked for LOC for the ORG , the time at which the LOC were provided ( DATE ) and the fact that they were informed of the purpose for which the LOC that GPE offered were to be used ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . They also correspond to ORG above findings as to the dates marking the opening of ORG in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The statements obtained in the investigation relied on by the Government are in a marked contrast to the disclosures made by the GPE authorities , GPE ’s partner under the agreement . ORG does not see how the findings of ORG , based on a DATE investigation and in - depth analysis of first - hand evidence , which in most part came from classified “ top secret ” sources , including CARDINAL pages of ORG documents ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) could be undermined by the material referred to by the Government .

The DATE ORG , in the chapter concerning the establishment of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) also refers to several interventions vis - à - vis the ORG made by the GPE ambassador in the country in the context of the operation of the ORG in that country and public disclosures of ill - treatment of detainees in GPE custody . First , in DATE , he expressed concern as to whether ORG was aware of the ORG detention facility in the country and its “ potential impact ” on GPE policy in respect of the ORG concerned . The second and third interventions , prompted by “ revelations about GPE detainee abuses ” were made in DATE and in the “ fall of DATE ” .

The report further states that “ while it is unclear how the ambassador ’s concerns were resolved , he later joined the chief of Station in making a presentation ” to the country ’s authorities ( or representatives ) whose names were redacted in the text . The presentation did not describe the EITs but “ represented that without the full range of these interrogation measures ” the GPE “ would not have succeeded in overcoming [ the ] resistance “ of PERSON and “ other equally resistant HVDs ” . The presentation also included representations “ attributing to ORG detainees critical information ” on several terror plots , including the “ GPE Plot ” , the “ FAC Plot ” and the “ Second Wave Plot ” . Also , in the context of intelligence obtained , several well - known HVDs in GPE custody were mentioned by name ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The above information originated in an evidential source to which the ORG attributes utmost credibility ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It gives a description of a concrete event – an oral presentation – that occurred at some time following “ the fall of DATE ” and during which , in the context of the operation of ORG in the country , the NORP authorities were presented with an outline of the ORG by the GPE officials . Even though the format of the meeting and names or functions of participants representing the host country have not been revealed , the disclosure clearly shows that the presentation included a fairly extensive account of the ORG . To begin with , the GPE officials clearly spoke of intelligence that had been obtained from high - value detainees through “ overcoming resistance ” by means of a “ full range of interrogation measures ” . They also suggested that specific terrorist suspects in ORG custody had provided “ critical intelligence ” on prominent terror plots . ORG prisoners whose resistance was “ overcome ” as a result of interrogations were spoken of , to mention only PERSON , the top HVD in ORG custody , suspected of masterminding DATE terrorist attacks in the GPE .

In GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE the fact that the national authorities 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 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 is to be reiterated that the ORG acknowledged that in respect of CARDINAL flights , namely NCARDINALP on DATE and ORG on DATE the flight plans had been changed when the planes had been in the air . They denied that any role in the process had been played by the NORP authorities , except for a passive , “ automatic ” acceptance of the change for which the plane operator had been solely responsible and assistance in transmitting the flight plans to the entity managing the integrated initial flight plan processing system ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP However , as already noted above , the clear inconsistencies in the flight data pertaining to destinations where the ORG - associated aircraft were supposed to arrive and from where they actually took off presented by the NORP authorities were already identified in the DATE ORG and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Also , PERSON PERSON ’s dossier addressed to ORG listed CARDINAL rendition flight circuits occurring DATE and DATE in respect of which false flight plans had been filed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The practice of so - called “ dummy ” flight planning , i.e. a process of intentional disguise of flight plans for rendition aircraft used by the air companies contracted by the ORG , for instance ORG or ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , was explained by Senator PERSON and Mr GPE in their testimony during the ORG presentation on the basis of CARDINAL examples of the ORG rendition circuits through GPE executed by plane NCARDINALP on DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The experts described the “ dummy ” flight planning as “ a systematic practice deployed by the ORG and its aviation services providers to disguise ORG flights into and out of its most sensitive operational locations ” . They added that the ORG could not execute this tactic alone since it “ depended upon , however discrete , a role played by the national counterpart authority ” . The NORP documentary records demonstrated the landing of NCARDINALP on DATE at FAC despite the absence of a valid flight plan . According to the experts , “ this was part of a systematic practice and through our investigations we [ had ] generated numerous , up to CARDINAL instances on which ORG rendition aircraft [ had ] transferred detainees into , and out of , GPE , GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In this connection , the ORG would also reiterate its above findings that the flights NCARDINALP and NCARDINALHC marking the opening and the closure of the ORG detention facility in GPE , flight NCARDINALVM , identified as the CARDINAL that brought the applicant into GPE and flight PERSON , identified as CARDINAL of the CARDINAL possible flights on which the applicant was taken out of GPE were concealed by the “ dummy ” flight planning ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above )

As the ORG found in LOC GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , the “ dummy ” flight planning , a deliberate effort to cover up the ORG flights , 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 ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Consequently , the fact that the NORP aviation authorities navigated the ORG flights into GPE , despite the fact that the relevant flight plans named GPE or PERSON as the airports of destination and accepted flight plans naming those destinations but navigated the planes to GPE demonstrated that they knowingly assisted in the process of disguise of the ORG planes ( ibid . ) .

The Government asserted that , in contrast to the circumstances in GPE v. GPE , in GPE there had been no special procedure for receiving the impugned flights ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

In that regard they relied on evidence from witnesses heard in the investigation , who had not related any special treatment of the GPE flights that would deviate from routine procedures for any ordinary flight ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG notes that , indeed , several witnesses said that they had not heard about or seen any “ clandestine passengers ” , “ detainees ” or “ any passenger especially of NORP origin ” ( see paragraphs MONEY and CARDINAL above ) or that they had not noted “ anything out of the ordinary when the ‘ private ORG [ had ] landed ” or that there had been “ no special services provided ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

NORP However , the statements of several other witnesses who referred to the “ special ” or “ N ” status flights with the GPE registrations contradict the ORG ’s assertion .

Witness E knew CARDINAL such flights that landed at TIME time and parked on the airport platform for TIME . He said that that the only person approaching them had been witness X.

Witness G knew of the “ N ” flights having been announced as special flights for which the staff had not been requested . Witness O spoke of CARDINAL plane that had been treated differently and the staff had been asked to stay in the office and not go to the plane . Witness P knew that special flights had been “ carried out at night ” ; also , on TIME he had seen a plane without a call sign and a man in dark overalls and military boots walking a dog near the plane ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

Witness X , apparently the only person who had been seen approaching the “ special planes ” did not explain in concrete terms what had in reality been going on but said that his presence in the airport had been connected with “ bilateral relations ” with the GPE ” equivalent structures ” and “ aimed at ensuring protocol relations during processing as well as bilateral courtesy - setting according to diplomatic norms and international rules ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Witness Z , in his statement of CARDINAL DATE given to the prosecutor was more explicit . He confirmed that in the context of GPE ’s forthcoming accession to ORG “ some developments or agreements [ had taken ] place in relation to the NORP flights to be operated by the ORG ” and that , “ from DATE several contacts had taken place in that direction and they resulted in concrete agreements that made possible the operation of the special NORP flights on NORP territory , in different conditions than those provided for by international customs ” . He added that “ those flights [ had ] had a special character and they [ had ] not [ been ] under an obligation to obey usual rules imposed on civil flights ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Lastly , in the ORG ’s view , the way in which the NORP authorities dealt with the accident on the landing of the aircraft ORG that occurred on DATE is CARDINAL more element that contradicts the ORG ’s above assertion as to the lack of any special treatment of the ORG - associated flights . The incident was described in ORG and the DATE EP Resolution , and was also related by PERSON at the fact - finding hearing ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The presence in GPE of CARDINAL passengers on the plane which came from GPE , GPE , was apparently concealed . Only on the GPE ’s considerable insistence did the NORP authorities give them a list of passengers , all of them GPE citizens with service passports . CARDINAL of them was armed with a Beretta gun and had ammunition on him . No questions were asked about the purpose of their trip from GPE , a place reported as hosting a ORG detention site for the purposes of interrogations of captured terrorist - suspects ( 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 , PERSON stated that the meeting had been convened in connection with recent international media reports , including ORG and ORG disclosures of , respectively , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , naming NORP countries that had allegedly hosted ORG “ black sites ” on their territories ( see 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 PERSON 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 . ) .

In the present case Mr PERSON testified that it had emerged from the debriefing that , at that stage , all the governments had known that this “ operational means ” had been chosen by the ORG and that the extraordinary renditions were a tool in the war against terrorism .

Mr PERSON further stated that the TDIP had “ never had doubts ” given the precision of the debriefing notes and the fact that in the course of their further work they had received confirmation from PERSON , legal advisor to PERSON , that the GPE had “ never violated the sovereignty of any ORG Member GPE or indeed any LAW in in the process of accession to the ORG ” and that everything what they had done “ [ had been ] done by always informing and asking for cooperation and never trying to prevail over the will of the governments of the Member GPE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the context of GPE ’s knowledge of the ORG , PERSON moreover referred to a statement of Mr Pascu , listed in the DATE ORG among the NORP high - office holders “ who knew about , authorised and [ stood ] accountable ” for GPE ’s role in the ORG HVD Programme ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to PERSON , Mr Pascu , as Minister of Defence , had been aware that the NORP authorities had not had access to certain sites which had been under the control of the GPE army or intelligence services . In Mr PERSON ’s opinion , this statement , although later rectified by PERSON , was truthful ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG considers , as it did in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ( both cited above ) , 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 materials 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 hood and that upon arrival at his destination was moved to the “ black site ” under the same conditions .

The ORG finds it implausible that the transportation of prisoners on land from the planes to the ORG detention site could , for all practical purposes , have been effected without at least the minimum assistance of the host country ’s authorities , if only to secure the area near and around the landed planes and provide the conditions for the secret and safe transfer of passengers . Inevitably , the NORP personnel responsible for security arrangements , in particular the reception of the flights and overland transit , must have witnessed at least some elements of the detainees’ transfer to ORG , for instance the unloading of blindfolded and shackled passengers from the planes ( see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Consequently , the ORG concludes that the NORP authorities who 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 were 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 wishes to refer to President ’s PERSON memorandum of DATE , stating that neither NORP nor ORG detainees qualified as prisoners of war under LAW and that LAW CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph MONEY above ) , did not apply to them . 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 , although including a disclaimer that even detainees “ not legally entitled ” to be treated humanely would be so treated , also spoke of respecting the principles of LAW “ to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - 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 the 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 interrogation and arbitrary and incommunicado detention . From DATE to the publication of the ORG report on 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 ) .

Also , in the DATE PACE Resolution of DATE of which GPE , CARDINAL of ORG member States 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 and NORP media ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . In particular , DATE and DATE the NORP press published a number of articles concerning illtreatment of prisoners and the use of “ violent interrogation techniques ” against captured terrorists by the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

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 have evolved over time , from DATE to the present day . A considerable part of evidence before the ORG emerged DATE after the events complained of ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ; see also PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and PERSON ( PERSON ) , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

GPE ’s alleged knowledge and complicity in the ORG must be assessed with reference to the elements that it knew or ought to have known at or closely around the relevant time , that is to say 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 the facts occurring in the past ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

NORP In its assessment , the ORG has considered all the evidence in its possession and the various related circumstances referred to above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Having regard to all these elements taken as a whole , the ORG finds that it has been adequately demonstrated to the required standard of proof that the NORP 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 primarily based on compelling and crucial evidence deriving from the DATE ORG and , to a considerable extent , evidence from experts .

The passages of the report about the agreement brokered between the GPE and the country hosting ORG leave no doubt as to the fact as to the NORP high - office ORG prior acceptance of a ORG detention facility 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 , referred to as a “ subsidy ” amounting to a redacted multiple of CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The experts , with reference to the reward received by the NORP authorities , spoke of a “ substantial sum , in the region of MONEY ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) or “ MONEY ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , for the purposes of its ruling , the ORG does not need , nor does it intend , to determine the sum that was at stake .

The ORG further attaches importance to the fact that the former Head of ORG Mr Iliescu and his national - security advisor PERSON , admitted publicly in the press interviews that the authorities had made available to the ORG LOC which , as Mr PERSON later explained , were located in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . While it is true that Witness Y and Witness Z in their testimonies before the prosecutor contradicted the statements of Mr Iliescu and PERSON reported in ORG , in the ORG ’s view their denial can not be considered credible as being in conflict with all other relevant materials cited above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . In any event , as noted above , Witness Z confirmed that a location “ for actions of combating international terrorist threats ” was offered to the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and-CARDINAL above ) .

Furthermore , the disclosure in the DATE ORG demonstrates conclusively that in DATE , when ORG had already been operating in GPE for DATE , the national authorities were given a presentation outlining the HVD Programme by the chief of the ORG station and the GPE ambassador . The content of that presentation as related in the report leaves no doubt as to the fact that at the very least the NORP authorities had learnt from the ORG of a “ full range of interrogation measures ” being used against their detainees in order to “ overcome resistance ” in the context of obtaining intelligence ( see CARDINAL above ) .

Furthermore , the experts , who in the course of their inquiries also had the benefit of contact with various , including confidential , sources 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 said that the authorities “ must have known that the ORG had used their territory for transfers of prisoners in the context of the war on terror ” . Mr GPE stated that “ quite clearly , categorically the NORP authorities , at the highest level , did know of the existence of secret detention on their territory ” and that “ they were aware of the precise purpose of the rendition flights entering and exiting the country , and the conditions , or roughly the conditions , under which the detainees were held in between their arrivals and their departures ” . Mr PERSON stated that “ though the operations were conducted under extreme secrecy , it is obvious that the ORG plane could not land with its cargo and depart without agreement from high - level NORP decision makers ” . PERSON said that it was “ clear that the authorities were aware of [ the purposes of the ORG aircraft landings in GPE ] because , among other things , they received money for it ” and that , based on the DATE ORG , it was “ normally common practice ... that the host country ’s officials were in the know about these facilities and the purposes of them ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

This did not mean , the experts added , that the NORP authorities had known the details of what exactly went on inside ORG or witnessed treatment to which the ORG prisoners had been 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 had been exclusively the ORG ’s responsibility ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ; see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , LAW ) .

However , in the ORG ’s view , even if the NORP authorities did not , or could not , have complete knowledge of the ORG , the facts available to them , in particular those presented to them directly by their GPE partners , taken together with extensive and widely available information about 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 were 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 Convention . Consequently , the NORP authorities had 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 NORP territory .

It further observes that it is DATE as previously found in respect of GPE DATE inconceivable that the rendition aircraft could have crossed the country ’s airspace , landing at and departing from its airports , that the ORG 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 its territory . Nor can it stand to reason that activities of such a character and scale , possibly vital for the country ’s military and political interests , could have been undertaken on NORP territory without GPE ’s knowledge and without the necessary authorisation and assistance being given at the appropriate level of the ORG authorities ( see GPE 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 ) LOC knew of the nature and purposes of the ORG ’s activities on its territory at the material time .

( b ) LOC , by entering into an agreement with the ORG on hosting 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 .

( c ) Given its knowledge of the nature and purposes of the ORG ’s activities on its territory and its involvement in the execution of that programme , GPE knew that , by enabling the ORG to detain terrorist suspects on its territory , it was exposing them to a serious risk of treatment contrary to the Convention .