I compliment the delegation on the thoroughness of the presentation. I also note the detail which went into preparing different aspects of the report since these are citizens from organisations which do not have the resources of the State. It is important I state that.
The delegation's submission contains the detail of the Dáil report of last Wednesday, 14 December, in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs was asked specific questions about some of the matters raised by Mr. Horgan. I would say to the delegation that there has been a fairly thorough and comprehensive discussion in Seanad Éireann on some of these issues which is to the credit of Senators.
I do not need to go back over the detail of the submission but I wish to raise what I believe are a number of fundamental, important political points with which the committee must deal. The committee finds itself trapped, no more than Members of the Oireachtas, by the simple assertion that the United States is a friendly country and that an assurance has been given on a number of matters — specifically what is called extraordinary rendition — and that we should be satisfied.
The points raised on the legal side are very important and they call into question many serious aspects of our international policy and credibility. I will give a straightforward example which is, in a way, a summary of some of the points made. In regard to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and even taking into account that we have not signed or ratified the optional protocol which we are supposed to do in 2006, the protocol on torture requires one not only not to practice torture but to seek to prevent it. We have reached an absolute stalemate in that regard. Is that a positive requirement? I, and other parliamentarians in both the Dáil and Seanad, have suggested that compliance with the United Nations Convention Against Torture requires one to seek to know that one is in compliance. The assurance we got from the Minister is that we should be satisfied with that. That assurance has not been accepted by a number of countries, including Sweden and other European countries. It has been regarded as insufficient.
As late as Wednesday, 14 December, the Minister, in reply to one of my questions, said the Government did not accept rendition or extraordinary rendition as a principle of international policy. However, the issue is that if one knows the aeroplane which landed in Shannon Airport on a number of occasions and on specific dates is one of 33 aeroplanes leased to ferry prisoners from one location to another, that people may have been rendered and that people at the point of origin or point of destination have no assurance that they will not be tortured, can one say that because one got an assurance, that relieves one of any responsibility in regard to rendition? I believe it does not. Once again the assurance is all one has.
One then moves on to a point which is very important in this regard. The European Convention on Human Rights, which is the creation of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, is equally concerned. This committee is responsible to both the Dáil and Seanad and the inspections which could answer the questions as to whether the assurance means anything and whether we are in compliance with international instruments may be something which may only be sought by external agencies, that is, by the monitoring committee of the United Nations or by Mr. Marty who is issuing a questionnaire on flight plans and so forth from the Council of Europe. There are no grounds at all for denying random or regular inspections to answer questions which are matters of public concern. It is interesting that both the United Nations and the European conventions specifically refer to matters of public concern.
I turn to another point, that is, the complaints, in which I am interested and on which I would perhaps like more detail, although it may well be in the report and I skimmed over it. The suggestion has been made in response to all our questions in both Houses that if we have hard evidence, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would be glad to make sure Ireland is not in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention Against Torture but how are we to know? Various Ministers have stated that if anybody has hard evidence, he or she should inform the Garda but this raises the question of the different roles of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the DPP. Two complaints were lodged on a specific day with the Garda in Shannon. Has the DPP taken a decision regarding what will happen to such complaints, information about which has been provided by the Minister in the Dáil or the Seanad? Once again, we cannot make progress regarding what is suggested might be hard evidence.
I refer to the original decision relating to 24 October 2003 on the use of Shannon Airport. At the time, Oireachtas Members were aware a UN Security Council mandate had not been issued but, quite separate from that, there was a debate on the principle of pre-emption. While everyone acceded to the principle that countries had the right to defend themselves under the UN Charter, only one eminent lawyer in the English speaking world agreed with the principle of making a pre-emptive strike that equated with the danger and to a proportionate response. That was the British Attorney General but he did not believe in it, according to documents leaked afterwards. The 12 senior professors of international law in Great Britain signed a unanimous statement in which they said in their view pre-emption is a breach of international law. A country cannot retrospectively put a matter right when it has acted pre-emptively, although this does not preclude the country from addressing conditions and so on, as happened, for example, with the reconstruction of Iraq. The breaches of international law are clear but the issue that arises is whether the simple assurance from a friendly country suffices for Ireland to honour its obligations to comply with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Everybody, including the Government, agrees rendition is illegal but, at the same time, the mechanisms for verifying whether rendition is taking place are not available to us. With regard to the suggestion that hard evidence might be required, what constitutes evidence? International law and the conventions to which I have referred contain the phrase "widespread public concern". Has widespread public concern not been demonstrated internationally?
If a country at the mid-point of a flight plan chooses not to know and evidence is presented about the use of the instrument at the point of origin and the point of destination, it has not absolved itself of responsibility. The report refers to Question No. 44 to the Minister for Transport on Thursday, 24 November 2005. The two planes referred to in the question were N379P and N80868V and they were used to move the German citizen Khaled al-Masri from Macedonia to Afghanistan. He was imprisoned and, later, the US Secretary of State apologised and suggested the Americans had made a mistake. We are faced with a serious set of impasses and it behoves the committee to ask itself a number of questions. It needs to examine whether Mr. Justice Kearns' decision on the general use of Shannon Airport and the Hague Convention is being observed; whether Ireland can vindicate its acceptance of the UN and European conventions; and whether procedures are available for citizens to work through the Garda without the need for a political decision. Perhaps I am entirely wrong. If a decision has been made by the DPP, I would be delighted to hear it. The final question relates to the comment made by Ms Morgan. I agree that if an individual is being held on an aeroplane, which began its journey elsewhere and is travelling to another country, Ireland is involved if it lands at Shannon.
The delegation made a good presentation and we should calmly seek answers to these questions. We should also seek to advance in the way we have been asked by the alliance to resolve the blockages in our way. Otherwise, as night follows day, evidence at the point of origin or destination will emerge and we will be found to have done nothing. Parliamentary debates are ongoing worldwide. Poland, which had rejected the notion of black holes surrounding rendition, is conducting a government inquiry. The position has also changed in Sweden. Suggestions have been made that, as a result of parliamentary investigations in a number of EU member states, a flurry of activity took place in November to move a number of prisoners to north African countries, which do not accept the disciplines of the UN Convention Against Torture.