Extradition

Extradition is the act by one jurisdiction of delivering a person who has been accused of committing a crime in another jurisdiction or has been convicted of a crime in that other jurisdiction into the custody of a law enforcement agency of that other jurisdiction. It is a cooperative law enforcement process between the two jurisdictions and depends on the arrangements made between them. Besides the legal aspects of the process, extradition also involves the physical transfer of custody of the person being extradited to the legal authority of the requesting jurisdiction.[1]

Through the extradition process, one sovereign jurisdiction typically makes a formal request to another sovereign jurisdiction ("the requested state"). If the fugitive is found within the territory of the requested state, then the requested state may arrest the fugitive and subject him or her to its extradition process.[2] The extradition procedures to which the fugitive will be subjected are dependent on the law and practice of the requested state.[2]

Between countries, extradition is normally regulated by treaties. Where extradition is compelled by laws, such as among sub-national jurisdictions, the concept may be known more generally as rendition. It is an ancient mechanism, dating back to at least the 13th century BC, when an Egyptian Pharaoh, Ramesses II, negotiated an extradition treaty with Hittite King, Hattusili III.[2]

Extradition treaties or agreements

The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, because one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation, and the desire for the right to demand such criminals from other countries, have caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements to evolve. When no applicable extradition agreement is in place, a sovereign may still request the expulsion or lawful return of an individual pursuant to the requested state’s domestic law.[2] This can be accomplished through the immigration laws of the requested state or other facets of the requested state’s domestic law. Similarly, the codes of penal procedure in many countries contain provisions allowing for extradition to take place in the absence of an extradition agreement.[2] Sovereigns may, therefore, still request the expulsion or lawful return of a fugitive from the territory of a requested state in the absence of an extradition treaty.[2]

No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States lacks extradition treaties with the China, Russian Federation, Namibia, the United Arab Emirates, North Korea, Bahrain, and many other countries.[3][4] (See Extradition law in the United States.)

Bars to extradition

By enacting laws or in concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they may entertain or deny extradition requests. Observing fundamental human rights is also an important reason for denying some extradition requests. It is common for human rights exceptions to be specifically incorporated in bilateral treaties.[5]:22 Such bars can be invoked in relation to the treatment of the individual in the receiving country, including their trial and sentence. These bars may also extend to take account of the effect on family of the individual if extradition proceeds. Therefore, human rights recognised by international and regional agreements may be the basis for denying extradition requests. However, cases where extradition is denied should be treated as independent exceptions and will only occur in exceptional circumstances.[6]

Common bars to extradition include:

Failure to fulfill dual criminality

Generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested states.

Political nature of the alleged crime

Many countries refuse to extradite suspects of political crimes. See political offence exception.

Possibility of certain forms of punishment

Some countries refuse extradition on grounds that the person, if extradited, may receive capital punishment or face torture. A few go as far as to cover all punishments that they themselves would not administer.

  • Death penalty: Many jurisdictions, such as Australia,[7] Canada, Hong Kong, Macao,[8] New Zealand,[9] South Africa, and most European nations except Belarus, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out. The United Nations Human Rights Committee considered the case of Joseph Kindler, following the Canadian Supreme Court's decision in Kindler v Canada to extradite Kindler who faced the death penalty in the United States. This decision was given despite the fact that it was expressly provided in the extradition treaty between these two states that extradition may be refused, unless assurances were given that the death penalty shall not be imposed or executed, as well as arguably being a violation of the individual's rights under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.[10] The decision by the Committee considered Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the “inherent right to life” and whether this right prohibited Canada from extraditing the individual to the United States where he faced the death penalty. The Committee decided that there was nothing contained in the terms of Article 6 which required Canada to seek assurance that the individual would not face the death penalty if extradited.[11] However, the Committee noted that if Canada had extradited without due process it would have breached its obligation under the Convention in this case.
  • Torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment: Many countries will not extradite if there is a risk that a requested person will be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In regard to torture the European Court of Human Rights has in the past not accepted assurances that torture will not occur when given by a state where torture is systematic or endemic.[12] Although in the more recent case before the same court Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom the court retreated from this firm refusal and instead took a more subjective approach for assessing state assurances. Unlike capital punishment it is often more difficult to prove the existence of torture within a state and considerations often depend on the assessment of quality and validity of assurances given by the requesting state. In the deportation case of Othman (Abu Qatada) the court provided 11 factors the court will assess in determining the validity of these assurances.[13] While torture is provided for as a bar to extradition by the European Convention on Human Rights and more universally by the Convention Against Torture, it is also a jus cogens norm under international law and can therefore be invoked as a bar even if it is not provided for in an extradition agreement.[6] In the case of Soering v United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that it would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital punishment case. This was due to the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed, but not the death penalty sentence itself. The Court in Soering stressed however that the personal circumstances of the individual, including age and mental state (the individual in this case was 18 years old) were relevant in assessing whether their extradition would give rise to a real risk of treatment exceeding the threshold in Article 3.[14]

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over a crime can be invoked to refuse extradition.[15] In particular, the fact that the person in question is a nation's own citizen causes that country to have jurisdiction (see next point).

Own citizens

Some countries, such as Austria,[16] Brazil,[17] the Czech Republic,[18] France,[19][20] Germany,[21] Japan,[22] Norway,[23] the People's Republic of China,[24] the Republic of China (Taiwan),[25] Russia,[26] Switzerland[27] and Syria[28] forbid extradition of their own citizens. These countries often have laws in place that give them jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by or against citizens. By virtue of such jurisdiction, they prosecute and try citizens accused of crimes committed abroad as if the crime had occurred within the country's borders (see, e.g., trial of Xiao Zhen).

Right to private and family life

In a limited number of cases Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been invoked to stop extradition from proceeding. Article 8 states that everyone has the right to the respect of their private and family life. This is achieved by way of balancing the potential harm to private life against the public interest in upholding the extradition arrangement.[12] While this article is useful as it provide for a prohibition to extradition, the threshold required to meet this prohibition is high.[12] Article 8 does explicitly provide that this right is subject to limits in the interests of national security and public safety, so these limits must be weighed in a balancing of priority against this right. Cases where extradition is sought usually involve serious crimes so while these limits are often justified there have been cases where extradition could not be justified in light of the individual's family life. Cases to date have mostly involved dependant children where the extradition would be counter to the best interests of this child.[12] In the case of FK v. Polish Judicial Authority the court held that it would violate article 8 for a mother of five young children to be extradited amidst charges of minor fraud which were committed number of years ago.[29] This case is an example of how the gravity of the crime for which extradition was sought was not proportionate to protecting the interests of the individual's family. However the court in this case noted that even in circumstances where extradition is refused a custodial sentence will be given to comply with the principles of international comity.[30] In contrast the case of HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa is an example of when the public interest for allowing extradition outweighed the best interests of the children. In this case both parents were being extradited to Italy for serious drug importation crimes.[31] Article 8 does not only address the needs of children, but all family members yet the high threshold required to satisfy Article 8 means that the vulnerability of children is the most likely circumstance to meet this threshold. In the case of Norris v US (No 2) a man sought to argue that if extradited his health would be undermined and it would cause his wife depression.[32] This claim was rejected by the Court which stated that a successful claim under Article 8 would require “exceptional” circumstances.[33]

Suicide Risk: Cases where there is risk of the individual committing suicide have also invoked article 8 as the public interest of extraditing must be considered in light of the risk of suicide by the individual if extradited. In the case of Jason's v Latvia extradition was refused on these grounds, as the crime for which the individual was sought was not enough of a threat to public interest to outweigh the high risk of suicide which had been assessed to exist for the individual if extradited.[34]

Fair trial standards

Consideration of the right to a fair trial is particularly complex in extradition cases. Its complexity arises from the fact that while the court deciding whether to surrender the individual must uphold these rights this same court must also be satisfied that any trial undertaken by the requesting state after extradition is granted also respects these rights. Article 14 of the ICCPR provides a number of criteria for fair trial standards.[35] These standards have been reflected in courts who have shown that subjective considerations should be made in determining whether such trials would be ‘unjust’ or ‘oppressive’ by taking into account factors such as the duration of time since the alleged offences occurred, health of the individual, prison conditions in the requesting state and likelihood of conviction among other considerations.[36] Yet exactly how the standards provided for in ICCPR are incorporated or recognised by domestic courts and decision makers is still unclear although it seems that these standards can at a minimum be used to inform the notions of such decision makers.[5]:35 If it is found that fair trial standards will not be satisfied in the requesting country this may be a sufficient bar to extradition.

Article 6 of the ECHR also provides for fair trial standards, which must be observed by European countries when making an extradition request.[5] This court in the Othman case, whom if extradited would face trial where evidence against him had been obtained by way of torture.[37] This was held to be a violation of Article 6 ECHR as it presented a real risk of a ‘flagrant denial of justice’.[12] The court in Othman stressed that in order for a breach of Article 6 to occur the trial in the requesting country must constitute a flagrant denial of justice, going beyond merely an unfair trial.[38] Evidence obtained by way of torture has been sufficient to satisfy the threshold of a flagrant denial of justice in a number of case. This is in part because torture evidence threatens the “integrity of the trial process and the rule of law itself.”[39]

Human rights and extradition

Human rights as a bar to extradition can be invoked in relation to the treatment of the individual in the receiving country, including their trial and sentence as well as the effect on family of the individual if extradition is granted. The repressive nature and the limitations of freedoms imposed on an individual is part of the extradition process and is the reason for these exceptions and the importance that human rights are observed in the extradition process. Therefore, human rights protected by international and regional agreements may be the basis for denying extradition requests, but only as independent exceptions.[6] While human rights concerns can add to the complexity of extradition cases it is positive as it adds to the legitimacy and institutionalisation of the extradition system.[40]

Determining whether to allow extradition by the requested state is, among other considerations, a balancing exercise between the interests of the requesting state's pursuit of justice over the accused individuals, the requested state's interests in holding dominion over those presently in its territory, and the rights of the extraditable persons.[41] Extradition raises human rights concerns in determining this balance in relation to the extraditable person. States make provision to recognise these rights both expressing in bilateral treaty agreements and also, potentially by way of state's obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is particularly relevant to extradition.[5] Although regional, the European Convention of Human Rights has also been invoked as a bar to extradition in a number of cases falling within its jurisdiction and decisions from the European Court of Human Rights have been a useful source of development in this area.

Aut dedere aut judicare

A concept related to extradition that has significant implications in transnational criminal law is that of aut dedere aut judicare.[2] This maxim represents the principle that states must either surrender a criminal within their jurisdiction to a state that wishes to prosecute the criminal or prosecute the offender in its own courts. Many international agreements contain provisions for aut dedere aut judicare. These include all four 1949 Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the U.N. Convention Against Corruption, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of an Armed Conflict, and the International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.[2]

Some contemporary scholars hold the opinion that aut dedere aut judicare is not an obligation under customary international law but rather “a specific conventional clause relating to specific crimes” and, accordingly, an obligation that only exists when a state has voluntarily assumed the obligation. Cherif Bassiouni, however, has posited that, at least with regard to international crimes, it is not only a rule of customary international law but a jus cogens principle. Professor Michael Kelly, citing Israeli and Austrian judicial decisions, has noted that “there is some supporting anecdotal evidence that judges within national systems are beginning to apply the doctrine on their own”.[2]

Controversies

International tensions

Swedish extradition of German and Baltic soldiers to the Soviet Union in January 1946
Cali Cartel boss Miguel Rodríguez Orejuela extradited from Colombia to the United States.
Juan Carlos Ramírez Abadía being extradited to face charges in the United States.
Viktor Bout extradited to the United States aboard a Drug Enforcement Administration plane.

The refusal of a country to extradite suspects or criminals to another may lead to international relations being strained. Often, the country to which extradition is refused will accuse the other country of refusing extradition for political reasons (regardless of whether or not this is justified). A case in point is that of Ira Einhorn, in which some US commentators pressured President Jacques Chirac of France, who does not intervene in legal cases, to permit extradition when the case was held up due to differences between French and American human rights law. Another long-standing example is Roman Polanski whose extradition was pursued by California for over 20 years. For a brief period he was placed under arrest in Switzerland, however subsequent legal appeals there prevented extradition.

The questions involved are often complex when the country from which suspects are to be extradited is a democratic country with a rule of law. Typically, in such countries, the final decision to extradite lies with the national executive (prime minister, president or equivalent). However, such countries typically allow extradition defendants recourse to the law, with multiple appeals. These may significantly slow down procedures. On the one hand, this may lead to unwarranted international difficulties, as the public, politicians and journalists from the requesting country will ask their executive to put pressure on the executive of the country from which extradition is to take place, while that executive may not in fact have the authority to deport the suspect or criminal on their own. On the other hand, certain delays, or the unwillingness of the local prosecution authorities to present a good extradition case before the court on behalf of the requesting state, may possibly result from the unwillingness of the country's executive to extradite.

Even though the United States has an extradition treaty with Japan, most extraditions are not successful due to Japan’s domestic laws. In order for the United States to be successful, they must present their case for extradition to the Japanese authorities. However, certain evidence is barred from being in these proceedings such as the use of confessions, searches or electronic surveillance. In most cases involving international drug trafficking, this kind of evidence constitutes the bulk of evidence gathered in the investigation on a suspect for a drug-related charge. Therefore, this usually hinders the United States from moving forward with the extradition of a criminal.[42]

There is at present controversy in the United Kingdom about the Extradition Act 2003,[43] which dispenses with the need for a prima facie case for extradition. This came to a head over the extradition of the Natwest Three from the UK to the U.S., for their alleged fraudulent conduct related to Enron. Several British political leaders were heavily critical of the British government's handling of the issue.[44]

In 2013, the United States submitted extradition requests to many nations for former National Security Agency employee Edward Snowden.[45] It criticized Hong Kong for allowing him to leave despite an extradition request.[46]

Abductions

In some cases a state has abducted an alleged criminal from the territory of another state either after normal extradition procedures failed, or without attempting to use them. Notable cases are listed below:

Name Year From To
Morton Sobell 1950 Mexico United States
Adolf Eichmann 1960 Argentina Israel
Antoine Argoud 1963 Germany (West) France
Isang Yun 1967[47] West Germany South Korea
Mordechai Vanunu 1986 Italy Israel
Humberto Álvarez Machaín 1990 Mexico United States
Abdullah Ocalan 1999 Kenya Turkey
Wang Bingzhang 2002 Vietnam China
Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr 2003 Italy Egypt
Rodrigo Granda 2004 Venezuela Colombia
Konstantin Yaroshenko 2008 Liberia United States
Dirar Abu Seesi 2011 Ukraine Israel
Gui Minhai 2015 Thailand China
Trịnh Xuân Thanh 2017 Germany Vietnam

"Extraordinary rendition"

"Extraordinary rendition" is an extrajudicial procedure in which criminal suspects, generally suspected terrorists or supporters of terrorist organisations, are transferred from one country to another.[48] The procedure differs from extradition as the purpose of the rendition is to extract information from suspects, while extradition is used to return fugitives so that they can stand trial or fulfill their sentence. The United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) allegedly operates a global extraordinary rendition programme, which from 2001 to 2005 captured an estimated 150 people and transported them around the world.[49][50][51][52]

The alleged US programme prompted several official investigations in Europe into alleged secret detentions and illegal international transfers involving Council of Europe member states. A June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated 100 people had been kidnapped by the CIA on EU territory (with the cooperation of Council of Europe members), and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centres ("black sites") utillised by the CIA, some of which could be located in Europe. According to the separate European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.[53] A large majority of the European Union Parliament endorsed the report's conclusion that many member states tolerated illegal actions by the CIA, and criticised such actions. Within days of his inauguration, President Obama signed an Executive Order opposing rendition torture and established a task force to provide recommendations about processes to prevent rendition torture.[54]

See also

International:

Individuals:

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Sadoff, David A. (2016-12-24). Bringing International Fugitives to Justice: Extradition and its Alternatives. Cambridge University Press. p. 43. ISBN 9781107129283.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dan E. Stigall, "Ungoverned Spaces, Transnational Crime, and the Prohibition on Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in International Law". SSRN 2211219. Missing or empty |url= (help)
  3. ↑ Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act of 1998 from the United States Department of State, Extradition Treaties
  4. ↑ "Putin: Snowden still in Moscow airport, won't be extradited, free to go anywhere". RT. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Johnston, P. "The Incorporation of Human Rights Fair Trial Standards into Australian Extradition Law". (2014) 76 Australian Institute of Administrative Law Forum 20.
  6. 1 2 3 Mariana (Mitra) Radu, Cătălina Mititelu (2013) “The Observance of Human Rights and Freedoms in the Extradition Proceedings at National and International Levels” JDSR 3, 100 at 101
  7. ↑ Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) s 15B.
  8. ↑ Article 7 of Macau Law No. 6/2006 Law of judicial cooperation in criminal matters ((in Portuguese) Lei n.º 6/2006, Chinese: 第6/2006號法律)
  9. ↑ Section 30(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 1999. Also section 48(1)(b)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999, although this section only applies to extraditions from New Zealand to Australia or the UK, neither of which have the death penalty.
  10. ↑ Kindler v. Canada, CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991, UN Commission on Human Rights, 11 November 1993, at 2.2
  11. ↑ Kindler v. Canada, CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991, UN Commission on Human Rights, 11 November 1993, at 14.6
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 Edward Fitzgerald (2013). Recent Human Rights Developments in Extradition Law & Related Immigration Law, The Denning Law Journal 25 89 at 90.
  13. ↑ Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2013] 55 EHRR 1. para 189
  14. ↑ Soering v. The United Kingdom, 1/1989/161/217 , Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 7 July 1989, [109].
  15. ↑ Adam Abelson (2010-05-19). "The prosecute/extradite dilemma: Concurrent criminal jurisdiction and global governance" (PDF). The criminal laws of the United States, whether state or federal, ordinarily apply only to conduct within U.S. territory. Sometimes, however, they apply to conduct abroad, from antitrust conspiracies to torture. Where such extraterritorial criminal prescriptive jurisdiction exists under U.S. law, jurisdiction typically exists under the law of another country as well, such as the country where the conduct occurred.
  16. ↑ "section 12 of the Austrian Extradition and Legal Assistance Act ("Auslieferungs- und Rechtshilfegesetz (ARHG)")". Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes (RIS), the official website of the Austrian government for the publication of legislation. 2014-02-27.
  17. ↑ Brazilian constitution of 1988, Article 5
  18. ↑ "Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, Article 14 (4), second sentence" (PDF). 1992-12-16.
  19. ↑ "Code of criminal procedure (legislative part), Articles 696-1 to 696-7" (PDF). published by Légifrance, the official website of the French government for the publication of legislation, regulations, and legal information. 2005-12-13.
  20. ↑ "Légifrance publications of the French legislation". Légifrance. 2005-12-13.
  21. ↑ Except to a member state of the European Union or to an international court: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 16 (2), 29 July 2009.
  22. ↑ Article 2, Law of Extradition ((in Japanese) 逃亡犯罪人引渡法)
  23. ↑ "Lov om utlevering av lovbrytere m.v. [utleveringsloven] - Kap. I. Vilkår for utlevering til fremmed stat.1 - Lovdata". lovdata.no (in Norwegian). Retrieved 2018-07-12.
  24. ↑ Article 8 of the Extradition Law of the People's Republic of China (Chinese: 中华人民共和国引渡法)
  25. ↑ Article 4 of the Law of Extradition (Chinese: 引渡法) prohibits a citizen of the Republic of China from being extradited from Taiwan, unless the person acquired the citizenship after the request for extradition is made.
  26. ↑ Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 61
  27. ↑ Swiss Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Article 7
  28. ↑ Article 38 of the constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic
  29. ↑ F-K v Polish Judicial Authority 2012 UKSC 25
  30. ↑ F-K v Polish Judicial Authority 2012 UKSC 25 para 132
  31. ↑ HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa 2012 UKSC 25 para 132.
  32. ↑ Norris v US (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 as discussed in J.R. Spencer Extradition (2013). The European Arrest Warrant and Human Rights, The Cambridge Law Journal 250 at 251.
  33. ↑ J.R. Spencer Extradition (2013). The European Arrest Warrant and Human Rights, The Cambridge Law Journal 250 at 251
  34. ↑ Jasons v Latvia [2004] EWHC 1845.
  35. ↑ "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (PDF). Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19 December 1966.
  36. ↑ O'Connor v Adamas [2013] FCAFC 14 at [323]-[331], (2013) 210 FCR 364, Federal Court (Full Court) (Australia).
  37. ↑ Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2013] 55 EHRR 1.
  38. ↑ Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK [2013] 55 EHRR 1 para 258-262.
  39. ↑ Rwanda v Brown [2009] EWHC 770 para 264
  40. ↑ Neil Boister, An Introduction to Transnational Criminal Law(OUP, 2012) at 287
  41. ↑ Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) and the Republic of Austria v Kainhofer [1995] HCA 35, (1995) 185 CLR 528 at [48] per Gummow J, High Court (Australia).
  42. ↑ Surena, André M. Grove, Margaret A. Perl, Raphael. Zagaris, Bruce. Blum, Jack A. International Drug Traffic. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting. American Society of International Law. Vol. 84. 28 March 1990. p. 1-12 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/25658526>
  43. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-07-15. Retrieved 2006-07-06.
  44. ↑ Oliver King and agencies (2006-07-04). "Lib Dem leader joins bankers' extradition battle". Politics.guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2014-07-29.
  45. ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2017-06-28. Retrieved 2013-04-19.
  46. ↑ "U.S. criticizes China's handling of Snowden case - CNN.com". CNN. 12 July 2013.
  47. ↑ Gil, Yun-hyeong (2004-10-30). "독일, 당시 국교단절 검토: 67년 윤이상씨등 서울로 납치 '동백림사건' 항의 (Germany considered breaking off relations at the time: Protests over the 1967 "East Berlin incident" kidnapping of Isang Yun and others)" (in Korean). The Hankyoreh. Retrieved 2007-05-30.
  48. ↑ Michael John Garcia, Legislative Attorney American Law Division. Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture 8 September 2009; link from the United States Counter-Terrorism Training and Resources for Law Enforcement web site Archived October 14, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
  49. ↑ Charlie Savage (17 February 2009). "Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's in Some Areas". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  50. ↑ "Background Paper on CIA's Combined Use of Interrogation Techniques". 30 December 2004. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  51. ↑ "New CIA Docs Detail Brutal 'Extraordinary Rendition' Process". Huffington Post. 28 August 2009. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  52. ↑ Fact sheet: Extraordinary rendition, American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 29 March 2007 (in English)
  53. ↑ Resolution 1507 (2006). Archived June 12, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states]
  54. ↑ "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations | The White House". Whitehouse.gov. Archived from the original on 26 January 2009. Retrieved 17 July 2010.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.