Expulsions v civil liberties

European interior ministers are considering rolling out across the EU the practice of deporting terrorist suspects to third countries, but, as Judith Crosbie reports, the proposal is meeting fierce opposition from human rights campaigners.

On 18 December 2001, Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed al-Zari were strapped into a plane at Stockholm’s Bromma Airport and flown to Egypt. There the two Egyptian nationals, who had been living in Sweden where they had applied for political asylum, claim they were tortured for several months before being brought to trial. The court case saw Agiza sentenced to 25 years in jail for involvement in an Islamic fundamentalist group while al-Zari was acquitted and released. The plane which flew the pair to Egypt was chartered by the CIA.

The case has been held up as an example of how CIA activity in Europe after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the US led to the abandonment of basic civil liberties. But it has also highlighted a controversial counter-terrorism practice employed by some member states, which has recently been brought onto the EU agenda.

The Swedish authorities say that before they agreed to fly Agiza and al-Zari to Egypt, they had received "diplomatic assurances" from the Egyptian authorities that the pair would not be subject to ill-treatment.

The deportation of terrorist suspects is a practice employed by the UK, the Netherlands, Italy and France, which refuse to host dangerous individuals who prove too difficult to bring to trial.

"There are cases in which we remain unable to prosecute. However, that does not mean that we should do nothing to forestall suspected terrorists or to prevent them from planning, assisting or otherwise supporting those willing to carry out attacks," then UK home secretary Charles Clarke said in May 2006.

David Miliband, the UK foreign minister, on 27 November confirmed that the UK had "signed memorandums of understanding" for deportations with Jordan, Libya and Lebanon. "Arrangements allowing deportations with assurances are in place with Algeria," he said, adding that discussions with "other countries" were ongoing.

Moves are now under way to bring the issue onto the EU agenda, with the UK leading the push. Interior ministers agreed last April to inform each other when deportations took place but they would not commit themselves to bringing forward a proposal at EU level.

Then in October the interior ministers of the EU’s six largest states agreed that expulsions with assurances had "proved an effective tool to protect people from non-nationals who pose a threat to national security" and that the issue should be raised at the EU level.

Since September the UK has been pushing for the rest of the EU member states to adopt a similar position. The UK is keen for the weight of the whole EU to be brought to bear on countries such as Libya, Algeria or Egypt to make sure that deported suspects are not ill-treated. If relations with 27 countries plus trade and other agreements with the EU risk being jeopardised then the assurances sought could be stronger, say UK officials. The Swedish example shows what can result from weak assurances, officials add.

But not everyone is convinced that bringing this issue onto the EU agenda is the way forward. Sweden in particular has severe reservations given its experience with Egypt and following the Agiza and al-Zari case, and has tried in the Council of Europe to reach standards on assurances which would see human rights better protected.

A number of court cases, both in member states and at the Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), have thrown the entire practice into doubt. The ECHR in 1996 ruled that Karamjit Singh Chahal, a Sikh militant, could not be deported back to India where he might have faced torture. In April a UK court delivered a similar judgement in a case involving two Libyan suspects while the ECHR is soon to rule in cases involving Italy and the Netherlands.

Human rights groups and civil liberties campaigners say that given these court judgements the issue should not be pursued at EU level.

"It is outrageous that they are trying to put this on the EU agenda," says Sophia in ’t Veld, a Dutch Liberal MEP.

But some member states seem determined to proceed, believing that deportations are a necessary evil and that the EU dimension could make assurances on human rights more watertight.

Gilles de Kerchove, the EU’s new counter-terrorism co-ordinator, says that he understands the difficulty faced by countries such as the UK and will await the outcome of the ECHR judgements. "It’s not something I plan to raise in the coming months but I’m listening and looking at the issues," he says.

Jonathan Faull, director-general of the Commission’s justice, freedom and security department says the Commission were, "not looking at any specific proposals…nobody is writing legislation to deal with it".

Dragutin Mate, the interior minister of Slovenia, however says that the matter will be discussed during his country’s presidency of the EU which started on 1 January but that it may be among officials in the Council of Ministers rather than the ministers themselves.

"I cannot say now what will be the outcome of the discussions but I personally believe that we must have the discussion and we must follow the high level of standards of human rights in our countries," he says.

European interior ministers are considering rolling out across the EU the practice of deporting terrorist suspects to third countries, but, as Judith Crosbie reports, the proposal is meeting fierce opposition from human rights campaigners.