CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 13 décembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA57BF135 { width:306.45pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s947D71BF { width:316.46pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s8775F964 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB2548E6F { width:142.44pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s913531A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCD4443CF { width:166.36pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s176D4DA9 { width:47.64pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sB688CE25 { width:130.99pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s1A42DA79 { width:193.73pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sBFDDDB2C { width:52.32pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s9DFB7CF6 { width:153.69pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sEE11F55B { width:106.29pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s324121FC { width:120.34pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s2432A9EA { width:231.09pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s66D3EBE0 { width:42.18pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sC155006A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s396AA040 { width:297.76pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sECE66A22 { width:54.95pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s3DDDD449 { width:183.73pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s4A9E1FB6 { width:118.33pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s581B8C11 { width:274.43pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s7E350DDE { width:32.96pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sD39EB90F { width:149.06pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s67C0B037 { width:90.31pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sCD923FC4 { width:162.36pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s2D95F5C5 { width:132.34pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s1FB7CD9E { width:100.34pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s43F06585 { width:3.63pt; display:inline-block } .sDFB85E39 { width:231.08pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sB555D0CA { width:188.42pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s6E17DEEE { width:155.76pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s5EE138D0 { width:123.37pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s7E7EC739 { width:149.05pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s2D588859 { width:111.64pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s6EF8122A { width:167.03pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s4F0D7D32 { width:285.1pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s47C21A51 { width:70.99pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sCA39916E { width:33.63pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sDEDD67F6 { width:177.68pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sEA36FDB8 { width:6.3pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sA1664030 { width:69.66pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sF6598B7C { width:313.76pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s8C7365DF { width:197.04pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sE70931C9 { width:249.75pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sF40C978A { width:323.11pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sD2E024F5 { width:202.39pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sF7A2C5B5 { width:233.74pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sDA0A610A { width:251.73pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sA0048580 { width:205.07pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sBC4CBB17 { width:38.3pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sF321ADB0 { width:36.93pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sC2E0C037 { width:73.7pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s81C292D8 { width:248.42pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s155F58A8 { width:152.35pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s6D5F5FCF { width:227.06pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s8A8D44AB { width:81.64pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sCACDB1C9 { width:7.05pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s9999EC30 { width:193.72pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sA65CAA85 { width:274.42pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sF376ABE4 { width:279.09pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sE6F0A32A { width:204.4pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s6438C181 { width:257.76pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s57A139B4 { width:291.11pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s60956F2B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:60pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF144239F { width:202.41pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s42413FD3 { width:9.61pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s92E3D301 { width:42.3pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s5DC1AC5B { width:58.33pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s735C8F71 { width:198.14pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s4078F1F2 { width:8.04pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8B7AAB { width:199.72pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sDD62C393 { width:169.72pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sB7C83DED { width:164.38pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s732FB1F1 { width:234.43pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s11B09B1F { width:5.72pt; display:inline-block } .sC840BEC6 { width:21.64pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s6EA988F { width:20.27pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s80114DA1 { width:113pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s7907DA87 { width:97.65pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s1EEE824B { width:9.05pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s1CC8EDAD { width:33.06pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sE9FE433 { width:35.73pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .sFD7A02FD { width:289.09pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s91555F87 { width:225.71pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s17C85EEA { width:253.08pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE0BAE19D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s555D9821 { width:225.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDAE800D6 { width:98.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE9B40630 { width:19.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE019FBDB { width:0.67pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD23A797 { width:213.49pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF74FB0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.5pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s38729B7C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s6469044C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3F88E4B3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .sF0D62E79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6A849601 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9059D239 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s2C695DB5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sECB35AF7 { width:188.3pt; display:inline-block } .s5603859D { width:196.63pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }     GRAND CHAMBER             CASE OF EL-MASRI v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA   (Application no. 39630/09)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   13 December 2012         TABLE OF CONTENTS   PROCEDURE .................................................. 1 THE FACTS .................................................... 3 I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ....................... 3 A.     The applicant’s version of events ........................... 3 1.     Travel to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ....... 3 2.     Incommunicado detention in the hotel ..................... 4 3.     Transfer to Skopje Airport ................................ 4 4.     Handover to a CIA “rendition” team at Skopje Airport ........ 4 5.     Flight from Skopje to Afghanistan ......................... 5 6.     Detention and interrogation in Afghanistan ................. 5 7.     Disguised “reverse rendition” to Albania ................... 6 8.     Arrival in Germany ...................................... 7 B.     The position of the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as regards the applicant’s allegations ....... 8 1.     The position of the Government as noted in the reports adopted following certain international inquiries ....... 8 (a)     Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-State transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member States, Doc. 10957, 12   June 2006 (“the 2006 Marty Report”) ....... 8 (b)     Council of Europe, Report by the Secretary General under Article   52 of the Convention on the question of secret detention and transport of detainees suspected of terrorist acts, notably by or at the instigation of foreign agencies (SG/Inf (2006) 5, 28 February 2006) ................................................. 10 2.     The version of events submitted by the Government in the proceedings before the Court ....... 11 C.     International inquiries relating to the applicant’s case ......... 12 1.     Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe – “the Marty Inquiry” ....... 12 (a)     The 2006 Marty Report .............................. 12 (b)     Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member States: second report, Doc. 11302 rev., 11   June 2007 (“the 2007 Marty Report”) ....... 14 2.     European Parliament: the Fava Inquiry ................... 15 3.     United Nations Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 3 April 2008, UN   Doc.   ССРR/С/МKD/СO/2 ....... 16 4.     The applicant’s petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States of America ....... 17 D.     Relevant proceedings before national authorities other than those of the respondent State ....... 17 1.     Germany ............................................. 17 (a)     Investigation by the German prosecuting authorities ..... 17 (b)     German parliamentary inquiry ........................ 18 2.     Legal action in the United States of America .............. 19 E.     Proceedings taken in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia regarding the applicant’s alleged arrest, confinement and ill-treatment ....... 19 1.     Proceedings before the Department for Control and Professional Standards (“the DCPS”) within the Ministry of the Interior ....... 19 2.     Criminal proceedings against unknown law-enforcement officials ....... 20 3.     Civil proceedings for damages .......................... 21 F.     Other evidence submitted to the Court ..................... 22 1.     Sworn witness statement of 4 March 2010 ................ 22 2.     Expert report on the applicant’s case submitted by Mr J.G.S.   23 3.     Declarations of the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) ....... 24 4.     WikiLeaks cables ...................................... 24 II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW ............................... 24 A.     The Constitution of 1991 ( Устав ) ......................... 24 B.     The Criminal Code ( Кривичен законик ) .................... 25 1.     Time bar for criminal prosecution ........................ 25 2.     Running and suspension of the time bar .................. 25 3.     Unlawful deprivation of liberty ........................... 25 4.     Torture ............................................... 25 5.     Ill-treatment in the performance of official duties ........... 25 C.     The Criminal Procedure Act of 1997 ( Закон за кривичната постапка ), as worded at the material time ....... 25 D.     The Obligations Act ( Закон за облигационите односи ) ..... 27 III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW AND OTHER PUBLIC MATERIALS ....... 27 A.     International legal documents ............................. 27 1.     Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, done in Vienna on 24   April 1963 and which came into force on 19 March 1967 ....... 27 Article 36 – Communication and contact with nationals of the sending State ....... 27 2.     International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) . 28 Article 4 ............................................... 28 Article 7 ............................................... 28 Article 9 ............................................... 28 3.     International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance ....... 28 Article 1 ............................................... 28 Article 2 ............................................... 29 Article 3 ............................................... 29 Article 4 ............................................... 29 4.     United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – the Istanbul Protocol, 1999 ....... 29 5.     International Law Commission, 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts ....... 29 Article 7 – Excess of authority or contravention of instructions   29 Article 14 – Extension in time of the breach of an international obligation ....... 30 Article 15 – Breach consisting of a composite act ........... 30 Article 16 – Aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act ....... 30 6.     United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 2 July 2002, UN   Doc. A/57/173 ....... 30 7.     Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1433 (2005) on lawfulness of detentions by the United States in Guantánamo Bay, adopted on 26 April 2005 ....... 31 8.     Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1463 (2005) on enforced disappearances, adopted on 3 October 2005 ....... 31 9.     United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/148 on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, adopted on 16 December 2005 ....... 31 10.     European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Opinion on the international legal obligations of Council of Europe member States in respect of secret detention facilities and inter-State transport of prisoners (no. 363/2005, 17 March 2006) ....... 32 11.     Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, 4 February 2009, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/3 ....... 32 12.     United Nations Human Rights Council, Resolutions 9/11 and 12/12: Right to the Truth, adopted on 18 September 2008 and 1 October 2009 .................................................... 33 13. Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations, 30 March 2011 ....... 33 B.     Relevant case-law of foreign jurisdictions and international bodies ....... 34 1.     Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division), Abbasi and Another v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Secretary of State for the Home Department , [2002] EWCA Civ 1598, 6   November 2002 ....... 34 2.     United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Falen Gherebi v. George Walker Bush; Donald H. Rumsfeld , 352 F.3d 1278, 18   December 2003 ....... 34 3.     United Nations Committee against Torture, Agiza v. Sweden , Communication No. 233/2003, UN Doc. CAT/C/34/D/233/2003 (2005), and United Nations Human Rights Committee, Alzery v. Sweden , UN   Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005 (2006) ....... 35 C.     Public sources highlighting concerns as to human rights violations allegedly occurring in US-run detention facilities in the aftermath of 11   September 2001 ....... 36 1.     Relevant materials of international human rights organisations36 (a)     Statement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on detention of Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners at the US Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, 16 January 2002 ....... 36 (b)     Amnesty International, Memorandum to the US government on the rights of people in US custody in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, 14 April 2002 ....... 36 (c)     Human Rights Watch, “United States, Presumption of Guilt: Human Rights Abuses of Post-September 11 Detainees”, vol. 14, no.   4   (G), 15 August 2002 ....... 36 (d)     Human Rights Watch, “United States: Reports of Torture of Al ‑ Qaeda Suspects”, 27 December 2002 ....... 37 (e)     International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, “Anti-terrorism Measures, Security and Human Rights: Developments in Europe, Central Asia and North America in the Aftermath of September 11”, Report, April 2003 ....... 37 (f)     Amnesty International Report 2003 – United States of America, 28   May 2003 ....... 37 (g)     Amnesty International, “Unlawful Detention of Six Men from Bosnia-Herzegovina in Guantánamo Bay”, 29 May 2003 ....... 38 (h)     Amnesty International, “United States of America, The Threat of a Bad Example: Undermining International Standards as ‘War on Terror’ Detentions Continue”, 18 August 2003 ....... 38 (i)     Amnesty International, “Incommunicado Detention/Fear of Ill-treatment”, 20 August 2003 ....... 38 (j)     International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “United States: ICRC President Urges Progress on Detention-related Issues”, news release 04/03, 16 January 2004 ....... 38 (k)     United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 29/2006, Mr   Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi and 25 other persons v. United States of America , UN Doc. A/HRC/4/40/Add.1 at 103 (2006) ....... 39 2.     Other public documents ................................ 39 CIA, “Memo to the Department of Justice Command Centre – Background Paper on CIA’s Combined Use of Interrogation Techniques”, 30 December 2004 ....... 39 3.     Media articles ......................................... 40 THE LAW ..................................................... 41 I.     THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-MONTH RULE ....... 41 A.     The parties’ submissions ................................. 41 1.     The Government ...................................... 41 2.     The applicant ......................................... 42 B.     The Court’s assessment .................................. 43 1.     General principles established in the Court’s case-law ...... 43 2.     Application of the above principles in the present case ...... 44 (a)     Whether a criminal complaint was a remedy to be used by the applicant ....... 44 (b)     The starting-point of the six-month time-limit ............ 46 (c)     Conclusion ......................................... 46 II.     THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS ....... 47 A.     The parties’ submissions ................................. 47 B.     The Court’s evaluation of the facts ......................... 47 1.     General principles ..................................... 47 2.     Establishment of the facts in the present case ............. 48 III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION . 52 A.     The parties’ submissions ................................. 52 1.     The applicant ......................................... 52 2.     The Government ...................................... 53 B.     The third-party interveners ................................ 53 1.     The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) ....... 53 2.     Interights ............................................. 54 3.     Redress .............................................. 55 4.     Joint submissions by Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists ....... 56 C.     The Court’s assessment ................................. 56 1.     Admissibility .......................................... 56 2.     Merits ................................................ 56 (a)     Procedural aspect of Article 3: lack of an effective investigation ....... 57 (i)     General principles ................................. 57 (ii)     Application of the above principles in the present case . 58 (b)     Substantive aspects of Article 3 of the Convention ....... 60 (i)     Ill-treatment in the hotel and at Skopje Airport ......... 60 (α)     General principles ................................ 60 (β)     Application of the above principles in the present case . 62 Treatment in the hotel ................................. 62 Treatment at Skopje Airport ............................ 63 (ii)     Removal of the applicant ........................... 64 (α)     General principles ................................ 64 (β)     Application of the above principles in the present case . 65 (iii)     Conclusion ...................................... 67 IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION   67 A.     The parties’ submissions ................................. 68 B.     The third-party interveners ................................ 68 C.     The Court’s assessment ................................. 69 1.     Admissibility .......................................... 69 2.     Merits ................................................ 69 (a)     General principles established in the Court’s case-law ... 69 (b)     Application of the above principles in the present case ... 70 (i)     The applicant’s detention in Skopje .................. 71 (ii)     The applicant’s subsequent detention ................ 72 (iii)     Conclusion ...................................... 73 (iv)     Procedural aspect of Article 5: lack of an effective investigation ....... 73 V.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION . 73 A.     The parties’ submissions ................................. 73 B.     The Court’s assessment .................................. 74 1.     Admissibility .......................................... 74 2.     Merits ................................................ 74 VI.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION75 A.     The parties’ submissions ................................. 75 B.     The Court’s assessment .................................. 75 1.     Admissibility .......................................... 75 2.     Merits ................................................ 75 (a)     General principles established in the Court’s case-law ... 75 (b)     Application of the above principles in the present case ... 76 VII.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION ..... 77 VIII.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION ..... 78 A.     Damage ............................................... 78 B.     Costs and expenses ..................................... 79 C.     Default interest .......................................... 79 JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES TULKENS, SPIELMANN, SICILIANOS AND KELLER ....... 82 JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES CASADEVALL AND LÓPEZ GUERRA ....... 85     In the case of El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President ,   Françoise Tulkens,   Josep Casadevall,   Dean Spielmann,   Nina Vajić,   Peer Lorenzen,   Karel Jungwiert,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Luis López Guerra,   Ledi Bianku,   Işıl Karakaş,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Helen Keller, judges , and Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 16 May and 24 October 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 39630/09) against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a German national, Mr   Khaled El-Masri (“the applicant”), on 20 July 2009. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr J.A. Goldston, Mr D. Pavli and Mr R. Skilbeck, from the Open Society Justice Initiative’s New York office, and Mr F. Medarski, a Macedonian lawyer. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to a secret rendition operation, namely that agents of the respondent State had arrested him, held him incommunicado, questioned and ill-treated him, and handed him over at Skopje Airport to agents of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who had transferred him, on a special CIA-operated flight, to a CIA-run secret detention facility in Afghanistan, where he had been ill-treated for over four months. The alleged ordeal lasted between 31   December 2003 and 29 May 2004, when the applicant returned to Germany. 4.     The application was allocated initially to the Fifth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 1 February 2011 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1) and this case was assigned to the newly composed First Section (Rule 52 § 1). 5.     On 28 September 2010 notice of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention was given to the Government. 6.     The German Government, who had been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings, under Article 36 §   1 of the Convention, gave no indication that they wished to do so. 7.     Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, the judge elected in respect of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The respondent Government accordingly appointed Peer Lorenzen, the judge elected in respect of Denmark, to sit in her place (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 8.     On 24 January 2012 a Chamber of the First Section, composed of Nina Vajić, Peer Lorenzen, Elisabeth Steiner, Khanlar Hajiyev, Julia Laffranque, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos and Erik Møse, judges, assisted by Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, none of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72). 9.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 10.     The applicant and the Government each filed observations. In addition, third-party comments were received from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Interights, Redress, the International Commission of Jurists and Amnesty International, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). 11.     The Court decided to dispense with an oral examination of Mr H.K., a witness proposed by the applicant. 12.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 16 May 2012 (Rule 59 § 3). 13.     There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   K. Bogdanov,   Agent , Ms   D. Djonova , Ministry of Justice, Ms   V. Stanojevska , Ministry of Justice, Ms   N. Josifova , Ministry of the Interior,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicant Mr   J.A. Goldston , Executive Director,   Open Society Justice Initiative, Mr   D. Pavli ,   Counsel , Mr   R. Skilbeck , Mr   F. Medarski,   Advisers .   14.     The Court heard addresses by Mr Bogdanov, Mr Goldston and Mr   Pavli, and also their replies to questions put by its members. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 15.     The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Senden, Germany. A.     The applicant’s version of events 16.     In the application, the applicant referred to his declaration made on 6   April 2006 for the purpose of the proceedings before the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (see paragraphs 62 and 63 below). 1.     Travel to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 17.     On 31 December 2003 the applicant boarded a bus in Ulm, Germany, with a view to visiting Skopje in order, as he stated, “to take a short vacation and some time off from a stressful home environment”. At around 3 p.m., he arrived at the Serbian/Macedonian border crossing at Tabanovce. A suspicion arose as to the validity of his recently issued German passport. A border official checked his passport and asked him about the purpose of his trip and the length and location of his intended stay. A Macedonian entry stamp dated 31 December 2003 was affixed to his passport. On that occasion, his personal belongings were searched and he was questioned about possible ties with several Islamic organisations and groups. The interrogation ended at 10 p.m. Accompanied by men in civilian clothes who were armed, he was driven to a hotel, which later research indicated was the Skopski Merak Hotel in Skopje (“the hotel”). Upon his return to Germany, the applicant recognised, through photographs available on the hotel’s website, the hotel building, the room where allegedly he had been held and one of the waiters who had served him food during his detention in the hotel. 2.     Incommunicado detention in the hotel 18.     The applicant was taken to a room on the top floor of the hotel. During his detention at the hotel, he was watched by a team of nine men, who changed shift every six hours. Three of them were with him at all times, even when he was sleeping. He was interrogated repeatedly throughout the course of his detention. He was questioned in English despite his limited proficiency in that language. His requests to contact the German embassy were refused. On one occasion, when he stated that he intended to leave, a gun was pointed at his head and he was threatened with being shot. After seven days of confinement, another official arrived and offered him a deal, namely that he would be sent back to Germany in return for a confession that he was a member of al-Qaeda. 19.     On the thirteenth day of his confinement, the applicant commenced a hunger strike to protest against his continued unlawful detention. He did not eat for the remaining ten days of his detention in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. A week after he had commenced his hunger strike, he was told that he would soon be transferred by air back to Germany. 3.     Transfer to Skopje Airport 20.     On 23 January 2004 at around 8 p.m., the applicant was filmed by a video camera and instructed to say that he had been treated well, that he had not been harmed in any way and that he would shortly be flown back to Germany. Handcuffed and blindfolded, he was put in a car and taken to Skopje Airport. 4.     Handover to a CIA “rendition” team at Skopje Airport 21.     Upon arrival, still handcuffed and blindfolded, he was initially placed in a chair, where he sat for one and a half hours. He was told that he would be taken into a room for a medical examination before being transferred to Germany. Then, two people violently pulled his arms back. On that occasion he was beaten severely from all sides. His clothes were sliced from his body with scissors or a knife. His underwear was forcibly removed. He was thrown to the floor, his hands were pulled back and a boot was placed on his back. He then felt a firm object being forced into his anus. As stated by the applicant’s lawyers at the public hearing of 16 May 2012, of all the acts perpetrated against the applicant that had been the most degrading and shameful. According to the applicant, a suppository was forcibly administered on that occasion. He was then pulled from the floor and dragged to a corner of the room, where his feet were tied together. His blindfold was removed. A flash went off and temporarily blinded him. When he recovered his sight, he saw seven or eight men dressed in black and wearing black ski masks. One of the men placed him in an adult nappy. He was then dressed in a dark blue short-sleeved tracksuit. A bag was placed over his head and a belt was put on him with chains attached to his wrists and ankles. The men put earmuffs and eye pads on him and blindfolded and hooded him. They bent him over, forcing his head down, and quickly marched him to a waiting aircraft, with the shackles cutting into his ankles. The aircraft was surrounded by armed Macedonian security guards. He had difficulty breathing because of the bag that covered his head. Once inside the aircraft, he was thrown to the floor face down and his legs and arms were spread-eagled and secured to the sides of the aircraft. During the flight he received two injections. An anaesthetic was also administered over his nose. He was mostly unconscious during the flight. A Macedonian exit stamp dated 23 January 2004 was affixed to the applicant’s passport. 22.     According to the applicant, his pre-flight treatment at Skopje Airport, “most likely at the hands of the special CIA rendition team”, was remarkably consistent with a recently disclosed CIA document describing the protocol for the so-called “capture shock” treatment (see paragraph 124 below). 5.     Flight from Skopje to Afghanistan 23.     Upon landing, the applicant disembarked. It was warmer outside than it had been in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which was sufficient for him to conclude that he had not been returned to Germany. He deduced later that he was in Afghanistan and that he had been flown via Baghdad. 6.     Detention and interrogation in Afghanistan 24.     After landing in Afghanistan, the applicant was driven for about ten minutes, then dragged from the vehicle, slammed into the walls of a room, thrown to the floor, kicked and beaten. His head and neck were specifically targeted and stepped upon. He was left in a small, dirty, dark concrete cell. When he adjusted his eyes to the light, he saw that the walls were covered in Arabic, Urdu and Farsi handwriting. The cell did not contain a bed. Although it was cold, he had been provided with only one dirty, military-style blanket and some old, torn clothes bundled into a thin pillow. Through a window at the top of the cell, he saw the red, setting sun. Later he understood that he had been transferred to a CIA-run facility which media reports have identified as the “Salt Pit”, a brick factory north of the Kabul business district that was used by the CIA for detention and interrogation of some high-level terror suspects. 25.     During his confinement, he was interrogated on three or four occasions, each time by the same man, who spoke Arabic with a south Lebanese accent, and each time at night. His interrogations were accompanied by threats, insults, pushing and shouting. His repeated requests to meet with a representative of the German government were ignored. 26.     In March 2004 the applicant, together with several other inmates with whom he communicated through cell walls, commenced a hunger strike to protest about their continued confinement without charge. As a consequence of the conditions of his confinement and his hunger strike, the applicant’s health deteriorated on a daily basis. He received no medical treatment during this time, although he had requested it on several occasions. 27.     On 10 April 2004, the thirty-seventh day of his hunger strike, hooded men entered his cell, pulled him from his bed and bound his hands and feet. They dragged him into the interrogation room, sat him on a chair and tied him to it. A feeding tube was then forced through his nose to his stomach and a liquid was poured through it. After this procedure, the applicant was given some canned food, as well as some books to read. 28.     Following his force-feeding, the applicant became extremely ill and suffered very severe pain. A doctor visited his cell in the middle of the night and administered medication, but he remained bedridden for several days. Around that time, the applicant felt what he believed to be a minor earthquake. In this connection, the applicant submitted the “List of significant earthquakes of the world in 2004”, issued by the US Geological Survey on 6 October 2005. According to this document, there was one earthquake on 5 April 2004 in the Hindu Kush region, Afghanistan. 29.     On 16 May 2004 the applicant was visited by a German speaker who identified himself only as “Sam”. The latter visited the applicant three more times prior to his release. 30.     On 21 May 2004 the applicant began his second hunger strike. 7.     Disguised “reverse rendition” to Albania 31.     On 28 May 2004 the applicant, blindfolded and handcuffed, was led out of his cell and locked in what seemed to be a shipping container until he heard the sound of an aircraft arriving. On that occasion, he was handed the suitcase that had been taken from him in Skopje. He was told to change back into the clothes he had worn upon his arrival in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and was given two new T-shirts, one of which he put on. He was then taken to the waiting aircraft, wearing a blindfold and earmuffs, and was chained to his seat there. “Sam” accompanied him on the aircraft. He said that the plane would land in a European country other than Germany, but that the applicant would eventually continue on to Germany. 32.     When the aircraft landed, the applicant, still blindfolded, was placed in the back seat of a vehicle. He was not told where he was. He was driven in the vehicle up and down mountains, on paved and unpaved roads. The applicant was aware of men getting out of the car and then of men getting in. All of the men had Slavic-sounding accents, but said very little. Eventually, the vehicle was brought to a halt. He was taken from the car and his blindfold was removed. His captors gave him his belongings and passport, removed his handcuffs and directed him to walk down the path without turning back. It was dark and the road was deserted. He believed he would be shot in the back and left to die. He rounded a corner and came across three armed men. They immediately asked for his passport. They saw that his German passport had no visa in it and asked him why he was in Albania without legal permission. He replied that he had no idea where he was. He was told that he was near the Albanian borders with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia. The men led him to a small building with an Albanian flag and he was presented to a superior officer. The officer observed the applicant’s long hair and long beard and told him that he looked like a terrorist. He was then driven to Mother Teresa Airport in Tirana. He was guided through customs and immigration control without inspection and put on a plane to Frankfurt, Germany. An Albanian exit stamp was affixed to the applicant’s passport. 8.     Arrival in Germany 33.     On 29 May 2004 at 8.40 a.m. the applicant arrived at Frankfurt International Airport. He was about eighteen kilograms lighter than when he had left Germany, his hair was long and unkempt, and he had not shaved since his arrival in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Immediately after arrival in Germany, the applicant met Mr   M. Gnjidic, a lawyer practising in Ulm. 34.     In his written submissions, the applicant stated that he had not undergone any medical examination apart from the isotope analysis of his hair follicles (see paragraphs 56 and 57 below). At the public hearing, the applicant’s lawyers specified that the results of some medical examinations carried out upon his return to Germany had been submitted by the German public prosecutor to the European Parliament’s Fava Inquiry (see paragraphs 47-51 below). However, those results had not been submitted to the Court since they had not been conclusive as to the presence of any physical injury, given the long time that had elapsed since the incident at Skopje Airport. Furthermore, the applicant stated that he had been subjected to sophisticated interrogation techniques and methods, which had been specifically designed not to leave any evidence of physical ill-treatment. 35.     The 2007 Marty Report (see paragraph 46 below) noted that the applicant had asked for treatment at the treatment centre for torture victims in Neu-Ulm shortly after his return to Germany in 2004. However, it took until 2006 for Mr Gnjidic to obtain the required health-insurance funding agreement to start a course of limited treatment (seventy hours) at the centre, which had been considered insufficient both by Mr Gnjidic and by the therapist herself (see paragraph 296 of the 2007 Marty Report). 36.     The applicant also submitted a written statement of 5 January 2009 by Dr Katherine Porterfield, a senior psychologist at the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, in which she had confirmed that the applicant had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression “most likely caused by his experience of capture and extensive maltreatment and abuse”. Dr Porterfield’s opinion was based on several telephone calls and two follow-up discussions with the applicant. She also advised him to visit a clinician in his community with the requisite expertise to help him. The applicant did not comply with that instruction. B.     The position of the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as regards the applicant’s allegations 1.     The position of the Government as noted in the reports adopted following certain international inquiries (a)     Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-State transfers of d