Courts and the politics of secrecy: national security, human rights and the importance of supranational oversight

Abstract

The article examines the use of state secrecy in court litigation concerning alleged gross human rights violations committed in the struggle against terrorism, focusing specifically on cases of extraordinary rendition and comparing the performance of courts in the United States, in Italy and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article explains that national courts have validated the assertion by national governments of the state secret privilege in litigation involving cases of extraordinary rendition, ensuring de facto immunity to individuals involved in gross human rights abuses. On the contrary, it underlines that the ECtHR has pierced the veil covering these ‘deep secrets’, undertaking a strict scrutiny of acts of extraordinary rendition to torture committed by governments in the name of national security. As the article argues, the success of the ECtHR can be explained by a number of reasons, including distance, time and institutional design. In conclusion, the case law of the ECtHR on secrecy and national security confirms the continuing importance of supranational courts as instruments of external oversight on the human rights practice of European states.

Keywords:

• Secrecy
• courts
• US
• Italy
• European Court of Human Rights
• right to the truth

Notes

1. Eur. Ct. H. R. (GC), El-Masri v. Former Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia, 12 December 2012 (Appl. No. 39360/09).

2. Eur. Ct. H. R. (4th sect.), Nasr et Ghali c. Italie, 23 February 2016 (Appl. No. 44883/09).

3. US v. Reynolds, 345 US 1 (1953).

4. Ibid., at 10.

5. Law 124/2007, Art. 39(1).

6. El-Masri v. US (El-Masri II), 479 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2007), at 14.

7. Ibid., at 31.

8. Ibid., at 31.

9. El-Masri v. US, 552 US 947 (2007).

10. Constitutional Court, judgment No. 106, 11 March 2009.

11. Ibid. §3 quoting Constitutional Court, judgment No. 86, 24 May 1977.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid., §12.3.

14. Ibid., §12.4.

15. Tribunal of Milan, criminal section IV, judgment No. 12428, 4 November 2009.

16. Court of Appeals of Milan, criminal section III, judgment No. 3688, 15 December 2010.

17. Court of Cassation, criminal section V, judgment No. 46340, 19 September 2012.

18. Court of Appeal of Milan, judgment No. 985, 2 February 2013.

19. Constitutional Court, judgment No. 24, 19 February 2014.

20. Court of Cassation, criminal section I, judgment No. 20447, 24 February 2014.

21. El-Masri, §§143–144.

22. Ibid., §§199–207.

23. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Report on the alleged secret detention and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states, 12 June 2006, PACE Doc. 10957.

24. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Second report on the alleged secret detention and illegal transfers involving Council of Europe member states, 11 June 2007, PACE Doc. 11302.

25. European Parliament Resolution on the alleged use of European Countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners, 30 January 2007, P6_TA(2007)0032.

26. Report of the Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin, A/HCR/10/3, 4 February 2009.

27. US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Study on the Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation Program, 9 December 2014.

28. El-Masri, §151.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid., §152.

33. Abu Omar, §228.

34. Ibid., §232.

35. Ibid., §220.

36. El-Masri, §182.

37. Ibid., § 88.

38. Abu Omar, §265.

39. Ibid., §265.

40. Ibid., §268.

41. Ibid., §270.

42. Ibid., §271.

43. Ibid., §272.

44. Ibid., §212.

45. Ibid., §218.

46. Abu Omar, §288.

47. El-Masri, §236.

48. Ibid., §239 (internal citations omitted).

49. Ibid.

50. Abu Omar, §301.

51. Ibid., §302.

52. Ibid., §308.

53. Ibid., §309.

54. El-Masri, §§258–262.

55. Abu Omar, §334.

56. Ibid., §335.

57. El-Masri, § 191.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid. (quoting Marty Report 2, §5).

60. Ibid., §192.

61. El-Masri, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Tulkens, Spielmann, Sicilianos and Keller, §3.

62. Ibid., §4.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid., §6.

65. El-Masri, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Tulkens, Spielmann, Sicilianos and Keller, §7.

66. Ibid.

67. Ibid.

68. Ibid.

69. Abu Omar, §262.

70. Ibid., §334.

71. Ibid., §335.

72. El-Masri, §191.