natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, whilst supporting the fight against terrorism, the rapporteur considers that many of the characteristics of the military commissions in their current form actually render them unjust: firstly, because they do not constitute independent or impartial tribunals; secondly, because they do not offer enough process guarantees such as those provided under the US Constitution (and in particular the US Uniform Code of Military Justice), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international human rights standards; thirdly, because there are unacceptable restrictions on the right to counsel and the ability to conduct an effective defence; finally, because they imply an unacceptable extension of military jurisdiction over non-military criminal conduct.
Therefore, whilst supporting the fight against terrorism, the rapporteur considers that many of the characteristics of the military commissions in their current form actually render them unjust: firstly, because they do not constitute independent or impartial tribunals; secondly, because they do not offer enough process guarantees such as those provided under the US Constitution (and in particular the US Uniform Code of Military Justice), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international human rights standards; thirdly, because there are unacceptable restrictions on the right to counsel and the ability to conduct an effective defence; finally, because they imply an unacceptable extension of military jurisdiction over non-military criminal conduct.
For these reasons, the rapporteur recommends stressing the EP's previous position (as declared in its previous resolutions on judicial cooperation between the EU and the US in combating terrorism and on EU-US judicial cooperation) that the US Patriot Act, which discriminates against non-US citizens, and President Bush's Military Order issued on 13 November 2001 authorising the use of military commissions are contrary both to the provisions of the Geneva Convention and to the principle of the protection of fundamental rights.
For these reasons, the rapporteur recommends stressing the EP's previous position (as declared in its previous resolutions on judicial cooperation between the EU and the US in combating terrorism and on EU-US judicial cooperation) that the US Patriot Act, which discriminates against non-US citizens, and President Bush's Military Order issued on 13 November 2001 authorising the use of military commissions are contrary both to the provisions of the Geneva Convention and to the principle of the protection of fundamental rights.
Implications for EU-US Transatlantic relations
Implications for EU-US Transatlantic relations
Both the continuing failure of the US to determine the status of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention and the functioning of the military commissions in their current form are clearly damaging the reputation of the US.
Both the continuing failure of the US to determine the status of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention and the functioning of the military commissions in their current form are clearly damaging the reputation of the US.
As has been correctly underlined, this lack of respect of humanitarian law could bring dire consequences in relation to the treatment of US soldiers captured in future armed conflicts.
As has been correctly underlined, this lack of respect of humanitarian law could bring dire consequences in relation to the treatment of US soldiers captured in future armed conflicts.
It could even serve as a justification for foreign governments wishing to free themselves of the restraints of human rights obligations.
It could even serve as a justification for foreign governments wishing to free themselves of the restraints of human rights obligations.
Even worse, such behaviour is certainly counter–productive since it risks making martyrs of the prisoners in the moderate Muslim world.
Even worse, such behaviour is certainly counter–productive since it risks making martyrs of the prisoners in the moderate Muslim world.
Further, US behaviour at Guantanamo Bay is likewise damaging the EU-US Transatlantic relationship.
Further, US behaviour at Guantanamo Bay is likewise damaging the EU-US Transatlantic relationship.
This Parliament has always been well aware of the substantive implications for the EU-US partnership deriving from the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the US.
This Parliament has always been well aware of the substantive implications for the EU-US partnership deriving from the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the US.
As has been underlined, these attacks involve a new and different kind of conflict aiming to undermine open societies.
As has been underlined, these attacks involve a new and different kind of conflict aiming to undermine open societies.
It is indispensable to establish reinforced ties between the US and the EU, given both the community of values that are now at risk and the interests that both sides have in common.
It is indispensable to establish reinforced ties between the US and the EU, given both the community of values that are now at risk and the interests that both sides have in common.
However, the European Parliament has likewise stressed that the fight against terrorism cannot be waged at the expense of basic shared values, such as respect for human rights and civil liberties, a situation that is currently happening at Guantanamo Bay.
However, the European Parliament has likewise stressed that the fight against terrorism cannot be waged at the expense of basic shared values, such as respect for human rights and civil liberties, a situation that is currently happening at Guantanamo Bay.
To avoid this, the rapporteur considers it more urgent than ever that the next EU-US Summit results in agreement to build a long-term Transatlantic collaborative framework and an Action Plan for the Fight against Terrorism.
To avoid this, the rapporteur considers it more urgent than ever that the next EU-US Summit results in agreement to build a long-term Transatlantic collaborative framework and an Action Plan for the Fight against Terrorism.
This has been suggested by the EP on different occasions.
This has been suggested by the EP on different occasions.
The final aim must be to combat international terrorism firmly, using all effective means against terrorist groups or individuals and their networks in order to defend the democratic system and the rule of law and protect fundamental rights and freedoms.
The final aim must be to combat international terrorism firmly, using all effective means against terrorist groups or individuals and their networks in order to defend the democratic system and the rule of law and protect fundamental rights and freedoms.
That must be done not only by military means but, above all, by a civilian approach in the framework of conflict prevention and by addressing the roots of the tremendous political, social, economic and environmental problems of today's world.
That must be done not only by military means but, above all, by a civilian approach in the framework of conflict prevention and by addressing the roots of the tremendous political, social, economic and environmental problems of today's world.
In any event, the most strict respect of the fundamental rights and the humanitarian law must be at the basis of this combat if democratic values, which are the foundation of the Transatlantic community (freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights), are to prevail.
In any event, the most strict respect of the fundamental rights and the humanitarian law must be at the basis of this combat if democratic values, which are the foundation of the Transatlantic community (freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights), are to prevail.
A. Explicit support should be given to the Council's view that the Third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 on the treatment of prisoners of war must be interpreted to mean that, in the event of doubt, the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay must be treated as prisoners of war until it is established that they do not fulfil the conditions required for them to be treated as such.
A. Explicit support should be given to the Council's view that the Third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 on the treatment of prisoners of war must be interpreted to mean that, in the event of doubt, the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay must be treated as prisoners of war until it is established that they do not fulfil the conditions required for them to be treated as such.
In that case, they must fall under either the Third Geneva Convention (lawful combatants entitled to prisoner of war protections) or the Fourth Geneva Convention (civilians).
In that case, they must fall under either the Third Geneva Convention (lawful combatants entitled to prisoner of war protections) or the Fourth Geneva Convention (civilians).
B. Neither the Military Order issued by President Bush on 13 November 2001 on "Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War against Terrorism" nor the subsequent Military Commission Orders issued by the Secretary of Defense, Ronald Rumsfeld establishing the relevant procedure should be considered by the EP as an appropriate procedural framework unless the US administration confirms that the "ad hoc military commissions" will meet all international law standards within the meaning of Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention and Article 14 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
B. Neither the Military Order issued by President Bush on 13 November 2001 on "Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War against Terrorism" nor the subsequent Military Commission Orders issued by the Secretary of Defense, Ronald Rumsfeld establishing the relevant procedure should be considered by the EP as an appropriate procedural framework unless the US administration confirms that the "ad hoc military commissions" will meet all international law standards within the meaning of Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention and Article 14 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
C. The long lasting situation in Guantanamo is clearly damaging the reputation of the US in legal and political terms.
C. The long lasting situation in Guantanamo is clearly damaging the reputation of the US in legal and political terms.
In addition, it could bring dire consequences for EU-US Transatlantic relations since the European Union cannot accept these legal and judicial irregularities which undermines the most fundamental values of the rule of law.
In addition, it could bring dire consequences for EU-US Transatlantic relations since the European Union cannot accept these legal and judicial irregularities which undermines the most fundamental values of the rule of law.
The forthcoming EU-US Summit should, therefore, deal with this issue as a priority and design a joint Action Plan for the Fight against Terrorism which combines strong determination and action against terrorism with full respect for international humanitarian standards.
The forthcoming EU-US Summit should, therefore, deal with this issue as a priority and design a joint Action Plan for the Fight against Terrorism which combines strong determination and action against terrorism with full respect for international humanitarian standards.
om Guantanamo-fangernes ret til en retfærdig rettergang
on Guantanamo detainees' right to a fair trial
Rådgivende ordfører: Baroness Ludford
Draftswoman: Baroness Ludford
På mødet den 17. november 2003 valgte Udvalget om Borgernes Friheder og Rettigheder og Retlige og Indre Anliggender Baroness Ludford til rådgivende ordfører.
The Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs appointed Baroness Ludford draftswoman at its meeting of 17 November 2003.
På møder den 26. november 2003, 22. januar og 9. februar 2004 behandlede udvalget udkastet til udtalelse.
It considered the draft opinion at its meeting of 26 November 2003, 22 January 2004 and 9 February 2004.
På sidstnævnte møde vedtog det nedenstående konklusioner (for: 25; hverken/eller: 1.
At the latter meeting it adopted the following suggestions by 25 votes, with 1 abstention.
Til stede under afstemningen var: Jorge Salvador Hernández Mollar (formand), Robert J.E. Evans (næstformand), Johanna L.A. Boogerd-Quaak (næstformand), Baroness Ludford (rådgivende ordfører), Roberta Angelilli, Carmen Cerdeira Morterero, Carlos Coelho, Gérard M.J. Deprez, Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli, Timothy Kirkhope, Ole Krarup, Lucio Manisco (for Ilka Schröder), Bill Newton Dunn, Arie M. Oostlander (for Eva Klamt), Marcelino Oreja Arburúa, Elena Ornella Paciotti, Hubert Pirker, Bernd Posselt, José Ribeiro e Castro, Martine Roure, Ole Sørensen (for Francesco Rutelli), Patsy Sörensen, Joke Swiebel, Anna Terrón i Cusí, Maurizio Turco og Christian Ulrik von Boetticher.
The following were present for the vote: Jorge Salvador Hernández Mollar (chairman), Robert J.E. Evans (vice-chairman), Johanna L.A. Boogerd-Quaak (vice-chairwoman), Baroness Ludford (draftswoman), Roberta Angelilli, Carmen Cerdeira Morterero, Carlos Coelho, Gérard M.J. Deprez, Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli, Timothy Kirkhope, Ole Krarup, Lucio Manisco (for Ilka Schröder), Bill Newton Dunn, Arie M. Oostlander (for Eva Klamt), Marcelino Oreja Arburúa, Elena Ornella Paciotti, Hubert Pirker, Bernd Posselt, José Ribeiro e Castro, Martine Roure, Ole Sørensen (for Francesco Rutelli), Patsy Sörensen, Joke Swiebel, Anna Terrón i Cusí, Maurizio Turco and Christian Ulrik von Boetticher.
Spørgsmålet om de personer, der blev taget til fange i Afghanistan og i de sidste 2 år har været holdt indespærret i henhold til et præsidentielt dekret uden tiltale eller retssag i Camp Delta på den amerikanske flådebase i Guantanamo Bay i Cuba, er blevet drøftet gentagne gange i Europa-Parlamentet.
The issue of the prisoners captured in Afghanistan, and incarcerated for the past 2 years under executive order without charge or trial in Camp Delta at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, has been discussed on many occasions by the European Parliament.
I den forbindelse støttede det kampen mod terrorisme, men anførte, " at den amerikanske Patriot Act, som diskriminerer mod ikke-amerikanske statsborgere, og præsident Bush' anordning om militærdomstole" var i strid med principperne om beskyttelse af de grundlæggende rettigheder B5-0813/2001 af 13.12.01.
Whilst supporting the fight against terrorism, Parliament declared that ' the US Patriot Act, which discriminates against non-US citizens, and President Bush's executive order on military tribunals ' were contrary to the principle of the protection of fundamental rights B5-0813/2001 of 13 December 2001.
Der bør mindes om, at andre fanger er tilbageholdt i Afghanistan og (tilsyneladende) på den britiske ø Diego Garcia, som USA har leaset.
It should be recalled that other prisoners are detained in Afghanistan and (apparently) on the British island leased to the US, Diego Garcia.
Som en af de tilbageholdte har udtalt: "Man har ikke ret til at have rettigheder."
In the reported words of one detainee: 'you don't have the right to have rights.'
Den amerikanske regering har nægtet at offentliggøre navnene på fangerne, men ifølge uofficielle oplysninger skulle der være 660 fra 40 forskellige lande, herunder 3 børn, et af dem på 13 år.
The US Government has refused to release the names of the prisoners, but unofficial information suggests 660 from 40 countries, including three children, of which one is 13.
Det bedste gæt er, at der er omkring 25 EU-statsborgere og personer med bopæl i EU, hvoraf 12 er briter.
The best guess is that there are about 25 EU nationals and residents, of which 12 are British.
Der er kun adgang for Den Internationale Røde Kors Komité og nogle udenlandske diplomater, men ikke for advokater eller familiemedlemmer.
Access is permitted only to the International Committee of the Red Cross and some foreign diplomats, but no lawyers or family members.
Der er sjældent post, og den censureres.
Mail is infrequent and censored.
Lyset er tændt døgnet rundt, og der har efter forlydende været 32 selvmordsforsøg.
Lights are kept on 24 hours, and there have been 32 reported suicide attempts.
Under forhørene anvendes der efter sigende stress- og tvangsteknikker ("torture lite"), som kan udgøre en overtrædelse af forbuddet mod tortur og umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling.
It is reported that 'stress and duress' ('torture lite') techniques are used in interrogation, which are likely to breach the bans on torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
Stik imod sædvanen brød ICRC for nylig tavsheden og anførte, at den tidsubestemte tilbageholdelse uden retlig beskyttelse var uacceptabel på grund af den flydende situation og dens indvirkning på den mentale sundhed.
The ICRC, breaking its normal habit of silence, recently said the indefinite detention without legal safeguards was unacceptable due to the 'open-endedness of the situation and its impact on mental health...'.
Sammen med truslen om dødsstraf må denne Kafka-agtige situation gøre tilståelser, "bekendelser" og påstandsaftaler både mere sandsynlige og mere suspekte.
Along with the threat of the death penalty, this Kafkaesque situation must make guilty pleas, 'confessions' and plea-bargaining both more likely and more suspect.
Ulovlig tilbageholdelse
Illegality of detention
Den amerikanske regering har nægtet at anerkende, at fangerne henhører under enten den tredje Genève-konvention (regulære kombattanter, der har ret til beskyttelse som krigsfanger) eller den fjerde Genève-konvention (civile personer); der findes ikke nogen mellemliggende status.
The US Government has refused to acknowledge that these prisoners must fall under either the Third Geneva Convention (lawful combatants entitled to prisoner of war protections) or the Fourth (civilians); there is no intermediate status.
Amerikanerne nægter kategorisk at betragte nogen af de påståede Taleban- eller al Qaeda-tilhængere som krigsfanger og lade en kompetent domstol afgøre deres status, som det kræves i tilfælde af tvivl.
It categorically rejects designation of any of the alleged Taliban or al-Qa’ida supporters as POWs, and refuses to submit their status for resolution by a competent tribunal as required in case of doubt.
Som krigsfanger vil de være beskyttet mod forhør og vil kun kunne tilbageholdes, indtil fjendtlighederne ophører, medmindre de er anklaget for krigsforbrydelser i en verserende sag ved en krigsret, som i modsætning til Bush/Rumsfeld-militærdomstole praktisk tager yder enhver form for regulær domstolsbeskyttelse bortset fra inddragelse af nævninge.
If POWs, they would have protection against interrogation and could be held only until cessation of hostilities, unless tried for war crimes under due process in a court martial, which, unlike the Bush/Rumsfeld military commissions, offers virtually every regular court protection except jury trial.
Men hvis de ikke er krigsfanger, er de civile personer, der må dømmes af det normale amerikanske strafferetssystem for de lovovertrædelser, de påstås at have begået.
But if not POWs they are civilians, who must be tried in the normal American criminal justice system for any crimes allegedly committed.
I tilfælde af anklage nyder begge kategorier den form for beskyttelse, der er omhandlet i den internationale konvention om borgerlige og politiske rettigheder, særlig artikel 9 og 14 (de pågældende garantier er selvfølgelig afspejlet i den amerikanske forfatning), og retten til at få tilbageholdelsens lovlighed prøvet ("habeas corpus") er et absolut centralt beskyttelsesaspekt.
For both categories when charged with a crime, the protections of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would apply, especially Articles 9 and 14 (these guarantees being of course reflected in the US Constitution) and the right to challenge lawfulness of detention ("habeas corpus") is an absolutely core safeguard.
Bush-regeringen har anført, at Genève-konventionerne er forældede, når det drejer sig om terrorister, og har valgt hverken at anerkende de konventionelle krigslove eller straffeloven, hvor menneskerettighedsbestemmelserne (den internationale konvention om borgerlige og politiske rettigheder og den amerikanske forfatning) bør finde anvendelse.
The Bush administration has argued that the Geneva Conventions are obsolete when dealing with terrorists and has chosen to apply neither those conventional laws of war nor the criminal law in which human rights norms (ICCPR and US Constitution) should apply.
I stedet har den forsøgt at skræve over begge ved at opfinde en ny restkategori "ulovlige kombattanter" i den potentielt ubegrænsede "krig mod terror" (omdannet fra en metaforisk til en bogstavelig betydning), men denne status er ukendt i international lov.
They have tried to straddle both by inventing a new residual category of 'unlawful combatant' in the potentially unlimited 'war on terror' (transformed from a metaphorical to a literal term), but such status is unknown in international law.
Paradoksalt nok betegnes al Qaeda som en befrielsesbevægelse og ikke som den farligste kriminelle organisation, der nogen sinde har eksisteret.
Paradoxically, it portrays al-Qa’ida as a liberation movement rather than the most dangerous criminal organisation that has ever existed.
Storbritanniens appelret har kritiseret det som forkasteligt, at den britiske fange Feroz Abbasi tilbageholdes på ubestemt tid på et område, som USA har eksklusiv kontrol over, uden mulighed for at få tilbageholdelsens lovlighed prøvet ved en domstol eller et tribunal.
Britain's Court of Appeal has criticised as 'objectionable that [British detainee Feroz Abbasi] should be subject to indefinite detention in territory over which the US has exclusive control with no opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of his detention before any court or tribunal.'
Dens beskrivelse af denne tilbageholdelse som "et juridisk sort hul" blev gentaget under et foredrag, som et af retsmedlemmerne af Overhuset (dvs. britisk højesteretsdommer), lord Johan Steyn for nylig holdt.
Its description of this detention as 'a legal black hole' was echoed in a recent lecture by one of the judicial members of the House of Lords (i.e. UK supreme court judge), Lord Johan Steyn.
FN-menneskerettighedskommissionens Arbejdsgruppe om Vilkårlig Tilbageholdelse har fordømt tilbageholdelserne som vilkårlige.
The UN Commission on Human Rights' Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has condemned the detentions as arbitrary.
Herudover er der tale om dobbeltmoral og forskelsbehandling.
In addition, double standards and discrimination are practised.
Den hvide amerikanske borger og Taleban-partisan, John Walker Lindh, blev retsforfulgt inden for det normale strafferetssystem, hvorimod ikke alene udlændingene, men også amerikanerne Yaser Hamdi og Jose Padilla er blevet anbragt i enecelle i et militærfængsel (dog på amerikansk område).
White US citizen and Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh was prosecuted in the normal civilian criminal justice system, whereas not only the foreigners but fellow Americans Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla have been subject to incommunicado military detention (although in their case on US territory).
Nægtelsen af at anerkende fangernes ret til at få adgang til de normale civile domstole og til beskyttelse som omhandlet i den amerikanske forfatning er indtil nu desværre blevet bakket op af de amerikanske domstole med den begrundelse, at Guantanamo Bay ikke er et område, som USA har suverænitet over, selv om det har kontrol over basen.
The denial of the prisoners' right to access the normal civil courts and the protection of the US Constitution has so far sadly been backed by the US courts, on the grounds that Guantanamo Bay, even though the US is in actual control of the base, is not sovereign US territory.
Det må bifaldes, at den amerikanske højesteret nu har meddelt, at den vil afgøre det spørgsmål, om de amerikanske domstole har jurisdiktion (som den selv ikke har i spørgsmålet om tilbageholdelsens lovlighed).
It is welcome that the Supreme Court has now said it will decide on whether US courts have jurisdiction (though not, itself, on legality of detention).