TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): Madam President, one of the ways in which the Polish state violated Mr. Al-Nasri's rights
AP1 (Applicant): was that the special service agents of the Polish state expressly prohibited the border guards from coming near the plane and verifying who was being brought in, who was being brought out.
AP1 (Applicant): This is, in fact, the way that the Polish state inhibited the vindication of Mr. Nasri's rights
AP1 (Applicant): and the protection of those rights.
AP1 (Applicant): My colleague, Ms. Singh, would like to address
AP1 (Applicant): a few further issues, if possible.
AP4 (Applicant): Madam President and members of the court, it is striking that despite repeated opportunities given to the Polish government to answer the court's questions, till this time it still has not answered those questions with respect to whether or not they contest the factual allegations set out in the applicant's submissions.
AP4 (Applicant): In fact, we submit the reason they're unable to contest these facts is because these facts are true.
AP4 (Applicant): And the court has heard overwhelming evidence, both documentary evidence as well as the testimony of expert witnesses, that confirm that the allegations in the application submissions are true.
AP4 (Applicant): With respect to Judge Wotaczek's question as to whether there are other methods for investigating or admitting the truth of the matter beyond the criminal investigation, we respectfully submit that nothing prevents the Polish government from admitting in general terms that in fact there was a CIA prison on Polish territory.
AP4 (Applicant): Because the overwhelming evidence in fact shows that that's the case.
AP4 (Applicant): In fact, we just heard from the prosecutor that, and I quote, he says, the events are sufficiently credible.
AP4 (Applicant): The fact that this investigation began in 2008, more than five years after our client was detained in Poland, the fact that it has gone on for so long only demonstrates that this is just another opportunity to obscure the truth, both from the applicant and from the public.
AP4 (Applicant): To sum up, the overwhelming evidence before this court supports the truth of Mr. Al-Nasri's application.
AP4 (Applicant): And in contrast, the government has utterly failed to rebut those allegations.
AP4 (Applicant): The court should therefore find that Mr. Al-Nasri has
AP4 (Applicant): established the truth of his allegations.
Ineta Ziemele (JudgeP): Thank you, Ms. Singh.
Ineta Ziemele (JudgeP): Yes, Mr. Jankowski, please.
AP3 (Applicant): Thank you, Madam President. Very briefly, in relation to the victim status of both applicants,
AP3 (Applicant): I think it is absolutely beyond any doubt in relation to what was said by the prosecutor representing government that both elements, subjective and objective, are met in this case. The prosecutor even today says that there is a certain level of probability that
AP3 (Applicant): my client suffered from crimes committed against him in the territory or within the jurisdiction of the Polish law. I wonder why he may not say in the face of the quality of evidence
AP3 (Applicant): that even yesterday was presented in front of the court that it is absolutely beyond reasonable doubt. In relation to the very specific provisions of law that were invoked
AP3 (Applicant): a couple of minutes ago to challenge the decision about the classification of certain documents, there might be such procedure, one may say, completely beyond the scope of jurisdiction of this tribunal. But in order even to apply that, one needs to find
AP3 (Applicant): out what has been classified. We've only been trying to get access to the file.
AP3 (Applicant): Once seeing that, once being granted this essential right within the criminal proceedings, essential from the perspective of a victim who we represent, then we would probably might consider any such actions. But I have very strong doubts if this is in any way applicable
AP3 (Applicant): to these proceedings. Thank you very much.
AP2 (Applicant): Madam President, members of the Court, in respect of Judge Gaetano's question, the suggestion from the State today that there is some kind of lacuna or gap in the way in which this document should be dealt with by the Court is not borne out by any reasoned argumentation or reasoned grounds why the government cannot comply with an order made in time, sufficiently, and on two separate occasions.
AP2 (Applicant): I would ask the Court, based on the government's attitude to that particular issue, to draw inferences from its approach to the provision of that document to the Court.
AP2 (Applicant): We say in that respect that, in practical terms, consistent with its approach throughout the investigation, throughout its dealings with these proceedings, it has maintained a position of obstruction and has maintained a position of not complying with its obligations pursuant to Article 38.
AP2 (Applicant): In terms of the case itself, in general terms, we would say this, that this Court is not just about principle.
AP2 (Applicant): It is about practical reality.
AP2 (Applicant): And it is telling that in everything the government has said, both in writing and orally here today, that when it comes to practical reality, it is unwilling to engage with the evidence.
AP2 (Applicant): It seeks refuge in what is nothing more than a flawed investigation, a discredited investigation.
AP2 (Applicant): And the strategy in response to the evidence is really quite simple.
AP2 (Applicant): It is to invoke and to rely on confidentiality of the investigation, which, in their view, absolves them of any responsibility in connection with the violations that were committed against Abu Zubaydah.
AP2 (Applicant): We don't dispute that in certain circumstances, issues may arise in the course of an investigation.
AP2 (Applicant): But where the state applies a blanket confidentiality approach, we would respectfully request that the Court take into consideration its attitude with respect to both these proceedings and in respect to dealing with the applicant at domestic level in Poland.
AP2 (Applicant): It relies on the non-cooperation of other states.
AP2 (Applicant): It's now hiding behind the apparent conflict between Polish law and the rules of this Court.
AP2 (Applicant): And this is precisely the approach that has informed the cases that are now before this Court, secrecy, confidentiality, and lack of transparency.
AP2 (Applicant): Further, it is a basic international law principle that states are not allowed to invoke domestic law to avoid international legal obligations or to justify noncompliance with international legal obligations.
AP2 (Applicant): In respect of the evidence, we submit that the evidence is overwhelming.
AP2 (Applicant): We've had consistent and comprehensive accounts of rendition flights, of activity in Ziminy Airport, of the intransigence and obstruction of the Polish government with respect to the investigation.
AP2 (Applicant): There has been categorical affirmation in relation to the existence of prisons in Polish territory, in relation to government knowledge, actual knowledge of what was happening, an act of participation and facilitation in the activities that were happening between 2002 and 2003.
AP2 (Applicant): The evidence is overwhelming.
AP2 (Applicant): The government has, in its reply, said that the events are sufficiently credible.
AP2 (Applicant): We would ask the Court to take into consideration everything it heard yesterday and the documentation we've submitted in respect of the application.
AP2 (Applicant): And we ask that the Court find violations in respect of Articles 3, 5, 6, and 8 of the Convention.
Ineta Ziemele (JudgeP): We have now come to the end of the hearing.
Ineta Ziemele (JudgeP): I thank the parties for their interventions and answers to the Court's questions.
Ineta Ziemele (JudgeP): The Court will now deliberate on the admissibility and merits.
Ineta Ziemele (JudgeP): The judgment will be delivered later.
Ineta Ziemele (JudgeP): The parties will be informed of the date of delivery.
Ineta Ziemele (JudgeP): I declare the hearing closed.