E.H.R.L.R. 2014, 2, 98-115 (Cite as: ) E.H.R.L.R. 2014, 2, 98-115 European Human Rights Law Review 2014 Bulletin: Counter-terrorismand human rights 2014 Sweet & Maxwell and its Contributors Subject: Human rights Keywords: Human rights; Terrorism *98 This bulletin covers the events from September 25, 2013 to January 25, 2014.It is compiled by the International Commission of Jurists, a non-governmental organisation working to advance understanding and respect for the Rule of Law and the protection of human rights throughout the world.The material in the bulletin is drawn from theICJE-Bulletin on Counter-terrorismand human rights in all regions of the world.Subscription to the E-Bulletin is free of charge on theICJwebsite:http://www.icj.org. Compiled by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States United Kingdom: New anti-terrorismpowers may breach human rights, says Parliamentary Committee On October 11, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights issued a report on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.1The draft legislation, among other measures, modifies the powers to stop, question and search travellers at ports and airports underSch.7 to theTerrorismAct 2000.While the Committee held that the Government "has clearly made out a case for a without suspicion power to stop, question and search travellers at ports and airports, given the current nature of the threat fromterrorism",2it found that new powers to be introduced, activated without reasonable suspicion, would be "incompatible with the right to liberty in Article 5 ECHR or the right to respect for private life in Article 8 ECHR".3The powers referred to are those "to detain for up to 6 hours; to access, search, seize, copy and retain all the information on personal electronic devices such as mobile phones, laptops and tablets; and to take and retain fingerprints and DNA samples without consent".4 In the Committee's view, these measures would only be justified if exercised on the basis of reasonable suspicion. United Kingdom: Secret services lobbied against disclosure of surveillance programme On October 25,The Guardianrevealed that the Government Communications

Headquarters (GCHQ) effectively lobbied the Government against a proposal which would make intercept evidence admissible as evidence in judicial proceedings as it feared "a 'damaging public debate' on the scale of its activities because it could lead to legal challenges against its mass-surveillance programmes".5In particular, GCHQ did not want to disclose that telecom firms "had gone well beyond" what they were legally required to do to help intelligence agencies' mass interception of communications, both in the United Kingdom and overseas,6 and it feared legal challenges based on theHuman Rights Act.On October 6, former Cabinet Minister Chris Huhne, who sat until 2012 in the National Security Council, declared that he had never been briefed on the existence of the GCHQ mass surveillance programme "Tempora" or on GCHQ's collaboration in the NSA programme "Prism".7On October 13,The Guardianreported that the Law Society was considering issuing guidelines to the legal profession responding to fears that the surveillance programme may endanger lawyer-client confidentiality.8In addition, on September*99 30, three organisations advocating in support of the right to privacy submitted a petition to the European Court of Human Rights alleging a violation of their right to privacy under art.8 of the ECHR caused by the UK surveillance programme.9 United Kingdom: GCHQ infiltrates phone companies computers and allows US surveillance on UK citizens, Snowden documents reveal On November 11, the newspaperDer Spiegelrevealed, on the basis of documents provided by whistleblower and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, that the UK intelligence agency GCHQ had developed a practice called "Quantum Insert", by which it installs malware spying software on computers of employees in telecommunication companies, including the Belgian phone company "Belgacom", through fake pages on LinkedIn, the popular career social network that has around 260 million users in more than 200 countries.The operation was said to increase the capacity of the GCHQ surveillance programmes.LinkedIn declared that it was not aware of these activities.10On November 20,The Guardianand Channel 4 Newsrevealed, also based on documents provided by Edward Snowden, that in 2007 UK intelligence agencies concluded a secret deal with the US National Security Agency (NSA) which allowed the NSA to examine and retain data collected on UK citizens.It was previously believed that citizens of the "Five Eyes" intelligence partners (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) had not been targeted under the NSA surveillance programmes.11 United Kingdom: Deprivation of nationality for "terrorism" suspect unlawful, rules Supreme Court On October 9, the Supreme Court ruled that the stripping of the UK citizenship of Hilal Abdul Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda by the Home Secretary in 2007 was unlawful, as it relied on a misinterpretation of theBritish Nationality Act 1981and would have rendered him stateless.The Court rejected the argument of the Home Office that Al-Jedda could have re-applied for his Iraqi citizenship which he had lost automatically once he was granted UK citizenship in 2000.The Supreme Court held that "[f]rom a plain reading of the statute and surrounding guidance, it is clear that the question is simply whether the person holds another nationality at the date of the order" depriving him of British citizenship.12Hilal Abdul Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda was granted UK citizenship in 2000 after having fled Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein in 1992. In 2004 he moved to Iraq and was arrested by US forces in October 2004 on suspicion of attacking coalition soldiers and then detained by UK forces for three years.After his release in 2007, he moved to Turkey where he currently lives with his family.The Home Secretary stripped him of his citizenship under suspicion of "terrorist"

activities.13 United Kingdom: Supreme Court upholds "very wide" definition ofterrorism On October 23, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Mohammed Gul on five counts of disseminating terrorist publications, for which he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment.The Supreme Court upheld the definition of "terrorism" in theTerrorismAct 2000, which may include armed attacks by non-state armed groups against national or international armed forces in a non-international armed conflict.The Court ruled that "it is difficult to see how the natural, very*100 wide, meaning of the definition can properly be cut down",14as it had been clearly deliberately drafted in wide terms to take into account various forms ofterrorism.The Court also rejected the argument that the definition was contrary to international law, finding an "insuperable obstacle" in the fact that there is no accepted definition ofterrorismin international law. United Kingdom: Foreign Ministry has no legal obligation to block "terrorism" suspect insertion on UN list On October 29, the Court of Appeal dismissed the case brought an Egyptian national, identified as Youssef, against the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (FCO) challenging the positions taken by this Ministry in the context of his insertion on the UN Al-Qaeda Sanctions List.15The FCO had initially blocked his listing when it was requested by another unnamed state in the Al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee, but later in 2005, after internal checks, had lifted its objection.In 2009, after further internal discussions, the FCO had requested that the Committee delete Youssef from the list, but to no avail, as such decisions require unanimity.The Court confirmed that, since the list is a prevention mechanism, the test of reasonable suspicion of association with any of the relevant terrorist groups was a valid standard of proof to assess whether someone should be inserted on the list.Furthermore, the Court held that the decision of the FCO on the insertion on the UN list was not discretionary and was not subject to a proportionality test.On the allegations that the evidence for Youssef's insertion on the UN list was tainted by torture, the Court held that this evidence did not come from the United Kingdom, as the United Kingdom did not make the request for insertion, and that the FCO was under no legal obligation to block an insertion on the list based on the possibility that evidence coming from another requesting country may have been tainted by torture. United Kingdom: High Court rules police breached right to a lawyer in airport detention On November 6, the High Court of Justice ruled that UK police and immigration officers violated the right to counsel of Abdelrazag Elosta, a Saudi citizen, when they held him at Heathrow airport underSch.7 to theTerrorismAct 2000and they refused to wait 45 minutes for the arrival of his lawyer to begin questioning him.Schedule 7 to theTerrorismAct 2000allows law enforcement officers to detain anyone for up to nine hours at border points, including airports, without suspicion ofterrorismactivity, to determine whether they may be "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts ofterrorism ".16On November 20, the UK Independent Reviewer ofTerrorismLegislation, David Anderson QC, published a new position on these measures before Parliament in which he stated that such border detention should be ordered only when "a senior officer is satisfied that there are grounds for suspecting that the person appears to be a person [involved interrorism] and that detention is

necessary in order to assist in determining whether he is such a person".17 United Kingdom: "Terrorism" grounds for airport detention of David Miranda disclosed in court In a hearing at the High Court on October 30, where David Miranda, the partner of formerGuardianjournalist Glenn Greenwald, is challenging his detention of August 18 at Heathrow airport underSch.7 to theTerrorismAct 2000, a communication issued by border officers regarding the grounds for Miranda's detention was read out: "We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material, the release of which would endanger people's lives.Additionally the disclosure or threat of disclosure*101 is designed to influence a government, and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause.This therefore falls within the definition ofterrorismand as such we request that the subject is examined under schedule".18Schedule 7 to theTerrorismAct 2000allows law enforcement officers to detain anyone for up to nine hours at border points, including airports, without suspicion ofterrorismactivity, to determine whether they may be "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".David Miranda was detained for nine hours while he was carrying a computer containing information from the former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden from Berlin to Brazil.19 Spain: European Court finds detention ofterrorismconvict in breach of Convention rights due to retroactively imposed sentencing rules On October 21, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the recalculation of the sentence of Ines Del Rio Prada in 2008, which postponed her release for several years, had violated the prohibition on retroactive penalties guaranteed in art.7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and her right to liberty under art.5(1) of ECHR.20The ICJ submitted a third party intervention case.21Ines Del Rio Prada had been convicted of terrorismoffences and sentenced to a total of over 3,000 years of imprisonment, converted to an effective sentence of 30 years' imprisonment.While at that time, the benefit of sentence reduction for work performed in prison was applied to the 30-year period, in 2008 the Spanish courts decided to deduct such benefits from the 3,000 years of nominal imprisonment instead, thereby significantly reducing their impact, and leading to a considerably longer sentence in the case of the applicant.The European Court held that the jurisprudential doctrine created in 2006 by the Supreme Court (Parotdoctrine), which altered the system of calculation of maximum terms of sentences, leading to reduced remission of sentences for work done in prison, constituted a retroactive redefinition of the sentence previously imposed, which could not have been foreseen.The day following the judgment, the Central Criminal Court ( Audiencia Nacional) ordered the release of Ines Del Rio Prada.22On November 12, the Supreme Court ordered all Spanish courts to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the caseDel Rio Prada v Spainand to free all prisoners who had not benefited from remission of punishment.23 Spain: Amnesty International urges halt to opposition leader's extradition to Kazakhstan On November 8, Amnesty International called on the Spanish Government not to extradite to Kazakhstan Aleksandr Pavlov, former head of security for the Kazakhstani opposition member Mukhtar Ablyazov, where he is wanted to answer charges of expropriation or embezzlement of trusted property and "plotting a terrorist attack", charges which his lawyer claimed are fabricated.24The call

of the human rights organisation comes after the Central Criminal Court ( Audiencia Nacional) approved the extradition.Amnesty International alleged that Aleksandr Pavlov would be at risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if sent to Kazakhstan.Mukhtar Ablyazov, who was granted refugee status in the United Kingdom, is currently detained in France under an Interpol warrant by Ukraine and the Russian Federation; Tatiana Paraskevich, one of his associates, is detained*102 in the Czech Republic pending extradition.This summer Mukhtar Ablyazov's wife and daughter were forcibly expelled by Italy to Kazakhstan in breach of Italian and international law. Spain: UN Committee concerned at use of incommunicado detention forterrorism suspects On November 13, the UN Committee against Enforced Disappearance adopted its concluding observations on the compliance by Spain with its obligations under the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. In its observations, the Committee expressed concern at the regime of incommunicadodetention forterrorismsuspects which allows for deprivation of liberty up to 13 days without the possibility to appoint a lawyer of his or her choice, to communicate confidentially with his or her lawyer or to communicate to others the fact of having been detained or the place of detention.The Committee observed that theincommunicadodetention regime does not comply with art.17 of the Convention.25 Portugal: UN Committee calls for reopening of investigation into US renditions complicity On November 20, the UN Committee against Torture adopted its concluding observations on the compliance of Portugal with its obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.The Committee noted that investigations in Portugal on the state's involvement in the US-led rendition and secret detention programme had been closed "on the grounds of insufficient evidence, despite reports on the State party's alleged cooperation in a rendition and secret detention programme".26 The Committee therefore encouraged Portugal "to continue its investigations, if further information is found, into allegations of the State party's involvement in a rendition programme and the use of the State party's airports and airspace by flights involved in 'extraordinary rendition', and bring to light the facts surrounding these allegations".27 Poland: UN Committee concerned at delays in rendition investigations, while European Court hears case on rendition complicity On November 19, the UN Committee against Torture adopted its concluding observations on the compliance of Poland with its obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.The Committee expressed concern "about the lengthy delays in the investigation process on the alleged complicity of the State party in the Central Intelligence Agency rendition and secret detention programmes between 2001 and 2008, which allegedly involved torture and ill treatment of persons suspected of involvement interrorismrelated crimes" and "about the secrecy surrounding the investigation and failure to ensure accountability in these cases".28The Committee called on Poland to complete the investigations within a reasonable time and to ensure accountability, and recommended that the authorities "inform the public and ensure transparency into the progress of its investigation process as well as cooperate in full with the European Court of

Human Rights on the Central Intelligence Agency rendition and secret detention cases against Poland".29On December 3, the European Court of Human Rights held a public hearing in the cases ofAl Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah v Poland.30On October 30, Poland granted "injured status" to Walid Mohammed bin Attash, a Guantanamo detainee, in the context of the ongoing*103 investigations into alleged secret detention and torture at the behest of US authorities on Polish territory under the US rendition and secret detention programme.31 Lithuania: Prosecutor General refuses to investigate rendition complicity case On October 3, Amnesty International denounced the decision of the Lithuanian Prosecutor General to reject the application of Redress and the Human Rights Monitoring Institute (HRMI) on behalf of Guantanamo detainee Mustafa al-Hawsawi to investigate his alleged secret detention in Lithuania in the context of his rendition by US authorities.The Prosecutor General reportedly "stated that that they had failed to 'prove' that al-Hawsawi was transported to Lithuania between 2004 and 2006, and illegally detained and tortured there".32Amnesty International recalled that it is the duty of the Prosecutor General to establish the veracity of the allegations through proper and effective investigations and that inquiries by the Prosecution Office in cases of complicity in renditions had been ineffective.Redress and HRMI indicated that they were planning to appeal the decision of the Prosecutor General.33 Switzerland: Federal prosecutor launches investigation into NSA surveillance in diplomatic Geneva On December 1, the newspaperSonntags Zeitungrevealed that the Swiss federal prosecutor launched an investigation on November 28 into illegal surveillance practices by the US National Security Agency (NSA) through the US Permanent Mission in Geneva.34According to the press reporting the statements of two agents of a security agency in Carouge (Geneva Canton) and documents provided by whistleblower and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the US Mission has been conducting surveillance of missions and UN premises from its mission in Geneva at least from 2006 to 2011.Reportedly, the investigation by the Swiss federal prosecutor needs the approval of the Federal Council, Swiss executive body, to continue.35 Europe/United States: Documents reveal European secret services' complicity in mass surveillance On October 30 and November 2, revelations published by the newspapersEl Mundo36 andThe Guardian,37based on documents provided by whistleblower and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, revealed that several European states likely collaborated with the US National Security Agency in the collection of metadata for its global surveillance programme.The documents published byEl Mundoreport that there exists a second group of countries (in addition to the "Five Eyes" states) which are considered as countries for "enhanced cooperation" and that the group includes 17 European countries, as well as Japan and South Korea. Furthermore,The Guardianreported that the UK GCHQ has assumed a leadership role among European intelligence services and assisted some of them, in particular those of Germany and Sweden, to weaken their internal regulations ensuring control over surveillance activities.*104 Bosnia and Herzegovina: UN Committee determines that expulsion of Iraqi national would breach international obligations

On November 6, the Human Rights Committee determined that if carried out, the contemplated expulsion of Zeyad Khalaf Hamadie Al-Gertani to Iraq would breach Bosnia and Herzegovina's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).The petitioner is an Iraqi national who fled to Bosnia and Herzegovina after deserting the army in the 1990s.The Committee said the expulsion would constitute a breach of his right to family life, as his wife and children are Bosnian nationals with no ties to Iraq, and because he was not able to challenge the grounds of national security on which his expulsion was ordered. Bosnia and Herzegovina stated only that the expulsion was ordered on grounds of national security "as established by a document classified as 'confidential' by the Intelligence and Security Agency".38The Human Rights Committee found that, because the reasons for detention based on national security were not communicated to him, the state violated his right to liberty.The Committee ruled that the detention was arbitrary, affirming that his right to have the grounds for his detention communicated to him and his right to challenge the legality of the detention, under art.9 of the ICCPR, had been violated. Turkey: Prosecutions for calling Ocalan "say n" violate freedom of expression, rules European Court of Human Rights On October 1, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkey had exercised a disproportionate interference with the freedom of expression of 19 persons who had been convicted for "praising the leader of a terrorist organisation" under the Turkish criminal law.39The conviction stems from having sent letters to a prosecutor contesting the criminalisation of the use of the title "sayin", said to be a title of respect, before the name of Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Ocalan.The letters pointed out that, if the use of such a title constituted a criminal offence, then the sender would self-incriminate himself by writing in the same latter "sayin Abdullah Ocalan".The Court held that in no manner could it be determined that such an expression would constitute incitement to violence orterrorismnor propaganda in favour of a terrorist organization.As such, the interference in their freedom of expression was not "necessary in a democratic society" and so was in breach of art.10 of the ECHR. Turkey: Crime "glorification" conviction breached freedom of expression, rules European Court of Human Rights On October 22, the European Court of Human Rights held that Turkish authorities had violated the right to freedom of expression of Bulent Kaya in relation to his conviction for "glorification of crime and of a criminal" under the Turkish Penal Code.40The conviction stems from a speech he gave at a rally organised in 2003 by a political party, during which slogans were chanted in support of Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Ocalan.The Court found that his speech did not constitute propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation, nor did it constitute incitement to violence, armed resistance or hatred.Furthermore, the Court held that his speech were not part of the slogans that were chanted and recalled that it had already ruled that similar slogans have no impact on national security or public order.For these reasons, the European Court ruled that Bulent Kaya's conviction was not "necessary in a democratic society" and, as such, breached his right to freedom of expression under art.10 of the ECHR.*105

Turkey: Turkey responsible for bombing of villages in anti-terrorismoperation On November 12, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkey was responsible for the bombing of two villages, Ku konar and Koea l in South-East Turkey, on March 26, 1994, in a military operation against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), and for the unlawful killing of 33 people caused by the bombing.The Court held that "an indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilians and their villages cannot be acceptable in a democratic society ... and cannot be reconcilable with any of the grounds regulating the use of force" 41in the Convention and ruled that Turkey breached the right to life of the 33 persons killed and was responsible for the serious injuries suffered by three other villagers.The Court further held that the investigations into the bombing had not been effective in breach of art.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).The Court ruled that the anguish and distress caused to the victims' close relatives as a result of witnessing their killing, the destruction of their homes and for attempts of cover-up by the authorities amounted to inhuman treatment in breach of art.3 of the ECHR. The Court also held that the Turkish authorities had breached their duty of collaboration with the Court under art.38 of the ECHR by trying to conceal a flight log which could have been relevant evidence to establish the responsibility of Turkey in the events. Russian Federation: Indiscriminate bomb attack breached right to life, rules European Court of Human Rights On October 3, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Russian Federation had violated the right to life of residents of the town of Aslanbek-Sheripovo (Chechnya) when forces carried out an indiscriminate bomb attack on February 17, 2000, which killed 18 residents and left three injured. 42The bombing was said to have been conducted in the framework of a security operation.The Court also held that the investigations into these deaths had been insufficient and that the right to life under art.2 of the ECHR had also been breached in its procedural aspect. The Court also ruled that, as a result, the victims and their relatives did not have access to an effective remedy, in breach of art.13 of the ECHR. Russian Federation: Killing ofterrorismsuspect breached his right to life, rules European Court of Human Rights On October 3, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russian authorities bear responsibility under the ECHR for the unlawful killing of Beslan Arapkhanov in the context of a counter-terrorismoperation in Ingushetia.He had been arrested in the context of the operation but later had his handcuffs removed to "assist" with the search of the premises, after which he was shot.The Court found that "the respondent State had not, at the relevant time, done all that could be reasonably expected of it to avoid real and immediate risk to life which they knew was liable to arise in police operations"43and had thereby violated his right to life under art.2 of the ECHR.The Court also held that the criminal investigations into the killing had been ineffective, in breach of the procedural aspect of art.2 of the ECHR.The Court also ruled that Russian authorities had breached the right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment (art.3 of the ECHR) of Beslan Arapkhanov's cousin who "had been beaten by State agents and had sustained the injuries, namely, cerebral bruising and numerous abrasions on the face and abdomen".44The investigations into the ill-treatment were also found ineffective in breach of the procedural tenet of art.3 of the ECHR.*106

Russian Federation: European Court finds Convention breached in several counter-terrorismoperations On October 10, 24 and 31 and on November 7, the European Court of Human Rights found, in five separate cases, that the Russian authorities had violated the right to life under art.2 of the ECHR of several persons apprehended in the framework of security operations in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 2001 and 2004.45All of the persons concerned had either been found dead or were to be presumed dead in light of the prolonged enforced disappearance to which they had allegedly been subject.The Court also held that the enforced disappearances amounted to a grave violation of the right to liberty and security under art.5 of the ECHR of the persons concerned, and caused inhuman and degrading treatment to their family members in breach of art.3 of the ECHR.The Court also ruled that the investigations into the enforced disappearance had been ineffective in breach of the procedural limb of art.2 of the ECHR and of the right to an effective remedy under art.13 of the ECHR. Russian Federation: European Court holds Russia responsible for abductions On November 7 and 14, the European Court of Human Rights ruled, in two separate judgments, that the Russian Federation was responsible for the abduction after release from detention of Azamatzhon Erkaboyevich Ermakov and Yusup Salimakhunovich Kasymakhunov, both Uzbek nationals, and for their subsequent appearance in Uzbekistan where they were detained pending criminal proceedings to answer charges ofterrorismand extremism.Both detainees had been released after extradition proceedings to Uzbekistan had been temporary halted pursuant to interim measures by the European Court of Human Rights, abducted immediately after their release and transferred to Uzbekistan via Domodedovo Airport.The Court held that they were at risk of being subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in Uzbekistan and that Russian authorities had therefore actively breached the principle ofnon-refoulement, as the transfer would have been impossible without "the authorisation of the Russian authorities or at least their acquiescence".46The Court defined these cases as "an egregious situation that so far tends to reveal a practice of deliberate circumvention of the domestic extradition procedure and of interim measures issued by the Court .... The Court reiterates that the continuation of such incidents in the respondent State amounts to a disregard for the rule of law.."47The Court therefore also found violations of the State's state's duty to respect the Court's interim measures under art.34 of the ECHRArticle 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Russian Federation: Family members and "dear ones" of terrorist bear civil damage liability under new law On November 3, President Vladimir Putin signed legislation introducing amendments to laws related to counteringterrorismincluding the Criminal Code.Under these amendments, relatives of convicted terrorists or "other persons whose life and wellbeing are dear to him/[her] as a result of established personal relationships"48would have to themselves provide compensation for the damages caused by a terrorist attack with their own resources, when there are sufficient grounds to believe that such resources were obtained as a result of terrorist activity.In addition, criminal responsibility was introduced for undergoing training in terrorist camps.Such responsibility could be avoided provided*107 that the accused persons provides information on the training and discloses the identity of other trainees.The

amendments introduced in the Criminal Code bring new offences of "organisation of an operation of a terrorist organisation", "participation in a terrorist organisation", "organisation of a terrorist community" and "participation in a terrorist community".49 Americas United States: Snowden's documents link NSA surveillance to CIA targeted killings programme On October 17, theWashington Postrevealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has an "extensive involvement in the [CIA] targeted killing program that has served as a centerpiece of President Obama's counterterrorism strategy",50 according to documents provided by whistleblower and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.The newspaper reports that CIA drone operations rely "heavily on the NSA's ability to vacuum up enormous quantities of e-mail, phone calls and other fragments of signals intelligence, or SIGINT".51For this purpose, the NSA reportedly created a secret unit dedicated to focus on hard-to-findterrorism targets.The information provided by Edward Snowden documents the involvement of the NSA in the CIA operations which led to the targeted killing via unmanned drones of Hassan Ghul, alleged to be an Al-Qaeda associate. United States: More wide-reaching NSA surveillance programmes revealed On October 15, theWashington Postreported that the National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting "hundreds of millions of contact lists from personal e-mail and instant messaging accounts around the world, many of them belonging to Americans".52This operation, according to documents provided by whistle-blower and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and certain senior intelligence officials, takes place outside the United States and without the authorization authorisation of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.The US Congress is not kept informed about the operations.The data collected through emails accounts' address books and online chats means that it is possible to "draw detailed maps of a person's life, as told by personal, professional, political and religious connections", and even to create "false associations".53The newspaper reported that "[d]uring a single day last year, the NSA's Special Source Operations branch collected 444,743 e-mail address books from Yahoo, 105,068 from Hotmail, 82,857 from Facebook, 33,697 from Gmail and 22,881 from unspecified other providers".54On October 25, the Department of Justice informed Jamshid Muhtorov, under trial in Colorado for material aid to a terrorist organisation, that they will use information collected through the NSA surveillance programme as evidence in the trial, thereby paving the way for a constitutional challenge of the legislation supporting the programme.55On October 30, theWashington Postalso reported, based on information in documents provided by Edward Snowden, that the NSA "has secretly broken into the main communications links that connect Yahoo and Google data centers around the world"56and that in thirty 30 days it "had processed and sent back 181,280,466 new records" in the frame of this programme called "MUSCULAR".*108 57 United States: NSA monitored 35 world leaders' conversation On October 25,The Guardianreported, on the basis of documents provided by whistle-blower and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, that the National Security AgencyNSA "monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders after being given the numbers by an official in another US government department".58

The leaders monitored, news reports include German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former Chancellor Gerhard Schroder.According to the report, the leaked confidential memo, dated October 2006, "reveals that the NSA encourages senior officials in its 'customer' departments, such as the White House, State and the Pentagon, to share their 'Rolodexes' so the agency can add the phone numbers of leading foreign politicians to their surveillance systems".On October 29, in a hearing before Congress, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, defined as "unrealistic" that the White House or the Congress be informed about US eavesdropping on foreign leaders.James Clapper affirmed that the monitoring of foreign leaders' conversation was normal business for intelligence agencies.NSA Director, General Keith B. Alexander, rejected the claims from the Snowden documents as false and contended that most of the surveillance activities purported to have been conducted in European countries were in reality conducted abroad and by European intelligence services.59 United States: NSA declassifies secret court ruling authorizing authorising surveillance programme amid more revelations of privacy violations On November 18, the National Security Agency (NSA), in response to a lawsuit under theFreedom of Information Actlaunched by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), released 1,000 classified documents in redacted form.60Among them was a 2004 ruling of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which is deemed to be the first judicial decision authorizing authorising the NSA mass surveillance programme.In the ruling, the Court allowed, out of deference to the Executive in matters of national security, the extension of the surveillance operations of phone metadata communication previously allowed in legislation to include Internet communication, thereby permitting the collection of provenience and destination (both "to", "cc" and "bcc") of emails.61Reportedly, the decision was the result of an internal dissent within the Justice Department, whereby several officers threatened to resign because the programme, already conducted without judicial authorization authorisation by the George W. Bush administration, had no legal basis.Subsequent FISC rulings, however, report that almost every record generated by the programme "included some data that had not been authorised for collection".62Meanwhile, newspapers published documents provided by former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden documenting that the NSA had attempted to and may be collecting geo-location data from mobile communications,63and that it was gathering online records of the public in order to discredit "radical" Islamists by exposing their porn research on the web.64On November 1, Secretary of State John Kerry*109 conceded "in some cases, I acknowledge to you, as has the President, that some of these actions have reached too far, and we are going to make sure that does not happen in the future.".65 United States: Supreme Court declines to hear case on NSA mass surveillance programme On November 18, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) requesting that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) be instructed to rescind its order allowing the indiscriminate collection by the National Security Agency (NSA) of record and data communications from the telephone company Verizon.66 United States: California law prohibits the State's collaboration with elements of US federal counter-terrorismpractice

On October 1, the Governor of California Jerry Brown signed into law Bill no. 351 which inserts in the State's Penal Code a prohibition for any California State officials to "knowingly aid an agency of the Armed Forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of a person within California pursuant to (A) ss.1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), (B) the federal law known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), enacted in 2001, or (C) any other federal law, if the state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the California National Guard would violate the United States Constitution, the fCalifornia Constitution, or any law of this state by providing that aid".67Section 1021(b)(2) of the federal National Defense Authorization Act is a law which affirms the authority of the US President under the AUMF to detain indefinitely any "person who was a part of or substantially supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.".The new Californian legislation also affirms that it is "the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorise indefinite detention of a person within California".68 United States: Federal courts have no jurisdiction over Guantanamo ill-treatment claims, rules Appeals Court On October 7, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal courts have no jurisdiction to consider the claims of civil damages brought by Adel Hassan Hamad, a former Guantanamo detainee, for his wrongful detention in Pakistan and in Guantanamo Bay from 2002 to 2007 and for the torture and ill-treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected.69The Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling dismissing the claims and stated that section s.2241(e)(2) of the US Code, inserted by the Detainee Treatment Act 2005, forecloses jurisdiction of federal courts in any question related to treatment or detention of any person "properly detained as an enemy combatant".The Court held that the abrogation by the Supreme Court in theBoumedienecase of the similar provision barring the federal courts' jurisdiction inhabeas corpus claims did not affect the validity of the provision at stake.*110 United States: Military commission judge orders to release ICRC-US communications On November 6, Col.James L. Pohl, the military judge presiding over the military commission proceedings against five Guantanamo detainees suspected of complicity in the attacks of September 11, 2001, ordered the government Government to hand over to him all its correspondence of the last ten years with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), that related to the defendants.The military judge dismissed representations by the Government and the ICRC stating that a confidentiality privilege exists for such information under international customary law.Judge Pohl dismissed this position by ruling that no such privilege existed in US statutes or common law.He also added that "the decisions by international tribunals on the issue of the existence of an absolute privilege for ICRC records are inconsistent as to whether such a privilege exists. Combining this with a lack of any precedent established in a court of the United States, or of any other nation-state, the Commission finds there is a lack of meaningful or longstanding international common law to serve

as precedent for the determination currently before it.".70The material, requested by the defence as proof of the conditions of detention, will be reviewed by the judge only in camera. The judge will decide which, if any, of the communications is to be made available to the prosecution and defence. United States: New defence budget law on hold over Guantanamo detainees transfer authorisation On November 21, Senate members subjected the National Defense Authorization Act 2013 (NDAA) to a filibuster, thereby pushing its approval into the month of December with significant risk that the legislation will not be passed before the end of the year.71The Senate version of the draft legislation contains provisions that would allow, subject to certain conditions, the transfer of some Guantanamo detainees cleared for release abroad.72An amendment to strike down these provisions was defeated in the Senate.73A similar amendment was, however, included from the NDAA Bill approved by the House of Representatives last June, which means that it may become a source of conflict between the two houses of Congress, forestalling the approval of the budget of the Department of Defense. United States: Two Guantanamo detainees forcibly transferred to Algeria amid fears of persecution On December 5, the United States forcibly repatriated Guantanamo detainees Belkacem Bensayah and Djamel Ameziane to Algeria.74sympathise United States: Report documents complicity of medical personnel in "war on terror" human rights violations On November 4, an independent Task Force on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centers, composed of 19 medical, military, ethics, public health, and legal experts, released a report,Ethics Abandoned: Medical Professionalism and Detainee Abuse in the "War on Terror", documenting "how medical personnel were used to establish and participate in torture practices".75The report also highlights "how the DoD committed a number of ethical breaches, including improperly using health professionals during interrogations; implementing rules that*111 permitted medical and psychological information obtained by health professionals to be used during interrogations; requiring medical staff to forgo independent medical judgment and force-feed competent detainees in violation of medical standards; and failing to adopt international standards for medical reporting of abuse against detainees".76On November 1, more than 35 eminent doctors and public health professionals wrote a letter to President Obama calling for an end to force-feeding of the remaining Guantanamo detainees continuing their hunger strike.77They stressed that the practice of force-feeding "severely breaches [medical ethical] principles and undermines medical care at the detention center".78They also declared their support for the statement by the president of the American Medical Association, James Lazarus, who wrote in the British Medical Journal that "in the AMA's view, the use of restraints to force-feed detainees is an inhumane and degrading intervention that falls within the prohibition of torture.". Canada: Canadian secret surveillance programme challenged in court On October 22, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and OpenMedia Organization filed a lawsuit79against the secret agency Communications Security

Establishment Canada (CSEC) alleging that the agency violated the right against unreasonable search and seizure and the right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms through their programmes of interception of "private communications of Canadians" and the "sweeping collection of metadata information produced by Canadians in their everyday activities online and through phone conversations".80This lawsuit comes after the revelations, based on documents provided by whistle-blower and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, that the CSEC had collected metadata of phone calls and emails from the Brazilian Mines and Energy Ministry.Brazil strongly protested at these actions and demanded explanations.81 Canada: Canada allowed US intelligence to spy on 2012 Toronto G-20 On November 27, CBC News revealed, on the basis of documents provided by whistleblower and former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden, that the Canadian Government had allowed the US intelligence agency to spy on the 2012 G-20 in Toronto from the US Embassy.82Previous documents provided by Snowden and published by the German newspaperDer Spiegelhad also revealed that Canadian secret services conducted surveillance activities abroad, in collaboration with the "Five Eyes" countries (United States, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and New Zealand), from their embassy, activities unknown to most employees working in the diplomatic missions.The Canadian Government has declined to comment on the recent revelations. Canada: Federal Court criticises abuse of foreign surveillance authorisations by secret services On November 22, the Federal Court issued a public summary of a redacted ruling to be issued in the caseXXX, regarding warrants first issued in 2009 in favour of the Canadian internal intelligence service (CSIS) authorizing authorising surveillance abroad of two Canadian citizens suspected of*112 "terrorism" activities.83According to the Court's statement, the warrants were issued by Justice Mosley to allow exceptionally the collaboration of the CSIS with the Canadian external intelligence service (CSEC) in the case of the two suspects.The Court stated that the CSIS had "breached its duty of candour to the Court by not disclosing information that was relevant to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court and to the determination by the Court that the criteria of investigative necessity and the impracticality of other procedures" under the law on secret services.In particular, the Court had "determined that the execution of the type of warrants at issue in Canada has been accompanied by requests made by CSEC, on behalf of CSIS, to foreign agencies (members of the "Five Eyes' alliance), for the interception of the telecommunications of Canadian persons abroad".84The Federal Court ruled that "the use of 'the assets of the Five Eyes community' is not authorised under any warrant issued to CSIS".85 United Nations and Regional Organisations United Nations: General Assembly Committee adopts resolution on right to privacy and surveillance On November 26, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly approved without a vote a resolution on "The right to privacy in the digital age".The resolution was introduced by Brazil and Germany following revelation of mass surveillance by the US National Security Agency (NSA), including information that these countries were among those whose leaders had been subjected to surveillance.The

Resolution expresses concern "at the negative impact that surveillance and/or interception of communications, including extraterritorial surveillance and/or interception of communications, as well as the collection of personal data, in particular when carried out on a mass scale, may have on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights".86The language of the resolution was reportedly weakened at the insistence of States states belonging to the "Five Eyes" intelligence community: United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.87The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, called the resolution "a first step" but warned that "Much more can and must be done to ensure trust in the safety of communications around the world.".88 United Nations: General Assembly Committee adopts resolution on counter- terrorismand human rights On November 26, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly adopted without a vote a resolution on the "protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms while counteringterrorism".The resolution calls on States states to "ensure that any measures taken or means employed to counterterrorism , including the use of remotely piloted aircraft, comply with their obligations under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, human rights law and international humanitarian law, in particular the principles of distinction and proportionality".89It further recognises the "need to continue ensuring that fair and clear procedures under the United*113 Nationsterrorism -related sanctions regime are strengthened in order to enhance their efficiency and transparency."90 United Nations: UN Special Rapporteurs question US targeted killings by drones On October 25, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while counteringterrorism, Ben Emmerson, and the UN Special Rapporteur on summary, arbitrary and extrajudicial executions, Christof Heyns, presented separate reports to the UN General Assembly concerning the use of use of armed drones in targeted killing operations, including their potential unlawfulness in some situations.91Both experts "called upon States to be transparent in their use of drones as weapons, to investigate allegations of violations of the right to life through drone killings, and to respect all applicable international law standards".92 The report of the Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights is centered on the "use of armed drones in counter-terrorismoperations and its civilian impact".93The report of the special rapporteur on summary, arbitrary and extrajudicial execution focuses on "the use of lethal force through armed drones from the perspective of the right to life and international norms in this regard".94 United Nations: UN bodies launch global initiative in support of criminal justice prosecutions for crimes ofterrorism On October 2, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Counter- TerrorismExecutive Directorate (CTED) launched a global initiative in Geneva with the aim to "support State efforts to confront their challenges in bringing terrorists to justice".95As presented by the two organisations, "[t]he initiative calls on States to strike a balance between protecting the rights of suspects and protecting their citizens against the threat ofterrorism".96The two bodies highlighted that the investigations and prosecutions of acts of

terrorismpresent many challenges for criminal justice systems, including the risk "of infringing on human rights and fundamental freedoms during the investigation and prosecution of suspects".97It was emphasised that States' states' response toterrorism"should be grounded in the rule of law and fully respect human rights".98 European Union: Parliament requests suspension or termination of anti-terrorism bank data exchange agreement with USUnited States On October 23, the European Parliament passed a resolution, by a margin of 280 to 254, asking the European Commission to take action to suppress or terminate the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.The action came following revelations based on the documents provided by whistleblower and former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden, that the US authorities had circumvented the agreement in collecting bank information in the EU European Union held by*114 the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).The European Parliament stated that, although it does not have power to suspend or terminate an international agreement directly, "when considering whether or not to give its consent to future international agreements, Parliament will take account of the responses of the Commission and the Council in relation to this Agreement".99The European Commission replied that talks with US authorities on the matter were ongoing and that in interim the agreement would remain in place.100 European Union: European Council denounces risk of "lack of trust" in intelligence collaboration with US After revelations that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had monitored phone conversations of several world leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and that the NSA surveillance programmes may have involved collection of data in France, Spain and Italy,101the European Council on October 25 issued a statement underlining that "a lack of trust could prejudice the necessary cooperation in the field of intelligence gathering"102and that this deficit could be detrimental to the fight againstterrorism.The Heads of State and Government of the EU Member States stressed the "close relationship between Europe and the USA and the value of that partnership [and] expressed their conviction that the partnership must be based on respect and trust, including as concerns the work and cooperation of secret services".103 European Union: Parliament concerned at climate of impunity in rendition complicity On October 10, the European Parliament, by a count of 286 to 180, with 114 abstentions, adopted a resolution on Alleged transportation and illegal detention of prisoners in European countries by the CIA.In the resolution, the European Parliament "[d]eeply deplores the failure to implement the recommendations contained in its ... resolution of September 11, 2012, notably by the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the candidate states and the associated countries, NATO, and the United States authorities, especially in the light of the serious fundamental rights violations suffered by the victims of the CIA programmes".104It stresses that "the climate of impunity regarding the CIA programmes has enabled the continuation of fundamental rights violations in the counter-terrorismpolicies of the EU and the US, as further revealed by the mass surveillance programmes

of the US National Security Agency and surveillance bodies in various Member States, which are currently being investigated by Parliament".105The resolution contains detailed recommendations on the EU institutions, the EU Member States and the United States on the question of tackling impunity for renditions.*115 Council of Europe: Human Rights Commissioner issues comment on secret surveillance and human rights On October 24, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muiznieks, issued a comment addressing "Human rights at risk when secret surveillance spreads".The Commissioner recalled that "States ... have a duty to ensure security within their borders and in doing so they can undertake secret surveillance of individuals who can pose a threat.But adequate and effective guarantees against abuse are needed.This can be achieved through legislation that strictly abides by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights".106 He further underlined that "[p]rivate companies and states alike must be more cautious in using data relating to our private life and must avoid any abuses that could arise from indiscriminate mining.For this they must develop surveillance and data collection policies that respect human rights". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Independent, "New police anti-terror powers could be unlawful, say MPs", October 11, 2013,http://www.independent.co.uk. 2. Joint Human Rights Committee, Legislative Scrutiny: Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, Fourth Report, October 9, 2013, H.L. Paper 56, H.C. 713, Summary, p. 5. 3. Joint Human Rights Committee, Legislative Scrutiny: Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, p.5. 4. Joint Human Rights Committee, Legislative Scrutiny: Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, p.5. 5. The Guardian, "Leaked memos reveal GCHQ efforts to keep mass surveillance secret", October 25, 2013,http://www.theguardian.com. 6. The Guardian, "Leaked memos reveal GCHQ efforts to keep mass surveillance secret", October 25, 2013,http://www.theguardian.com. 7. The Guardian, "Cabinet was told nothing about GCHQ spying programmes, says Chris Huhne", October 6, 2013,http://www.theguardian.com. 8. The Guardian, "GCHQ mass surveillance putting right to challenge state at risk, say lawyers", October 13, 2013,http://www.theguardian.com. 9. Big Brother Watch v United Kingdom, App.No.58170/13, available at,https://www.privacynotprism.org.uk/assets/files/privacynotprism/496577_app_No_58170-13_BBW_ORG_EP_CK_v_UK_Grounds.pdf. 10. "Quantum spying: GCHQ Used used Fake fake LinkedIn Pages pages to Target target engineers", November 11, 2013,http://www.derspiegel.de. 11. The Guardian, "US and UK struck deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data", November 20, 2013,http://www.theguardian.com.

12. Secretary of State for the Home Department v Al Jedda 2013 UKSC 62at [32], October 9, 2013. 13. The Independent, "Humiliating defeat for Theresa May in Supreme Court appeal over 'stateless' former terror suspect stripped of British citizenship", October 9, 2013,http://www.independent.co.uk. 14. R. v. Gul 2013 UKSC 64at [38], October 23, 2013. 15. Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 2013 EWCA Civ 1302, October 29, 2013. 16. Abdelrazag Elosta v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 2013 EWHC 3397 (Admin), November 6, 2013. 17. Recommendations of the Independent Reviewer on Schedule 7 of theTerrorism Act 2000, Supplementary written evidence submitted by David Anderson Q.C., November 20, 2013. 18. The Guardian, "Metropolitan police detained David Miranda for promoting 'political' causes", November 2, 2013,http://www.theguardian.com. 19. Reuters, "UK: Snowden reporter's partner involved in 'espionage' and ' terrorism'", November 1, 2013,http://www.reuters.com. 20. Del Rio Prada v Spain, Grand Chamber, App No.42750/09, Judgment of October 21, 2013. 21. ICJ third party intervention inDel Rio Prada v. Spain, Grand Chamber, Application App.No. 42750/09, February 7, 2013, available athttp://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Spain-Prada-v-Spain-legal-submission-2013-eng.pdf. See also,ICJ, "Spain: ICJ welcomes European Court ruling in Del Rio Prada case", October 21, 2013,http://www.icj.org. 22. Audiencia Nacional, Auto No.61/2013, October 22, 2013, available in Spanish. 23. Acuerdo de Sala General de lo Penal del Tribunal Supremo, November 12, 2013, available in Spanish. 24. Amnesty International, "Spain set to extradite man to Kazakhstan despite torture risk", November 8, 2013,http://www.amnesty.org. 25. Committee against Enforced Disappearance, Concluding observations on report submitted by Spain, November 13, 2013, CED/C/ESP/CO/1,http://www.ohchr.org. 26. Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Portugal, November 20, 2013, CAT/C/PRT/CO/5-6,http://www.ohchr.org, para.13. 27. Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Portugal, November 20, 2013, para.13. 28. Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the combined fifth

and sixth periodic reports of Poland, November 19, 2013, CAT/C/POL/CO/5-6,http://www.ohchr.org, para.10. 29. Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Poland, November 19, 2013, para.10. 30. Al Jazeera, "Europe rights court hears of CIA prisons", December 3, 2013 ,http://www.aljazeera.com. 31. Amnesty International, "Poland grants victim status to Guantanamo detainee over torture allegations", October 30, 2013,http://www.amnesty.org. 32. Amnesty International, "Lithuania again refuses to investigate secret detention of Guantanamo Bay detainee", October 3, 2013,http://www.amnesty.org. 33. Crofton Block, Reprieve, "'Open Europe', Shut Case - Lithuania Denies CIA Prison Evidence", October 7, 2013,http://www.reprieve.org.uk. 34. Sonntags Zeitung, Der Beweis: die USA spionierten in der Schweiz, December 1, 2013, available in German. 35. Tribune de Geneve, "Premiere enquete ouverte sur l'espionnage americain a Geneve", December 2, 2013, available in French. 36. El Mundo, "El CNI facilito el espionaje masivo de EEUU a Espana", October 30, 2013,http://www.elmundo.es. 37. The Guardian, "GCHQ and European spy agencies worked together on mass surveillance", November 1, 2013,http://www.theguardian.com.See also,Copenhagen Post, "New NSA leak: High level of Danish and US intelligence sharing", October 31, 2013,http://www.cphpost.dk;The Local, "Snowden report fingers Sweden for UK spying", November 2, 2013,http://www.thelocal.se. 38. Zeyad Khalaf Hamadie Al-Gertani v Bosnia and Herzegovina, Human Rights Committee, Communication No.1955/2010, Views of November 1, 2013, para.4.2. 39. Yaleinkaya v Turkey, App.No.25764/09, Judgment (in French) of October 1, 2013. 40. Bulent Kaya v. Turkey, Application App.No. 52056/08, Judgment (in French) of October 22, 2013. 41. Benzer v. Turkey, Application App.No. 23502/06, Judgment of November 12, 2013at [184]. 42. Abdulkhanov v. Russia, Application App.No. 22782/06, Judgment of October 3, 2013, request for referral to the Grand Chamber pending. 43. Arapkhanovy v. Russia, Application No. 2215/05, October 3, 2013, at [ 123]. 44. Arapkhanovy, App No.2215/05, October 3, 2013at [144]. 45. Yandiyev v Russia, App.No.34541/06, Judgment of October 10, 2013;Gakayeva v Russia, App.No.51534/08, Judgment of October 10, 2013;Dovletukayev v Russia, App.No.7821/07, Judgment of October 24, 2013;Tovbulatova v Russia, App.No.26960/06, Judgment of October 31, 2013;Bopayeva v Russia, App.No.40799/06, Judgment of November 7, 2013.

46. Ermakov v. Russia, Application App.No. 43165/10, Judgment of November 7, 2013, at [ 220].See also,Kasymakhunov v. Russia, Application App.No. 29604/12, Judgment of November 14, 2013. 47. Ermakov v Russia, App.No.43165/10, Judgment of November 7, 2013at [229]. 48. See the text of the law in Russian athttp://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_153916/. 49. Ria Novosti, "Putin signs law punishing terrorists' relatives", November 3, 2013. 50. Washington Post, "Documents reveal NSA's extensive involvement in targeted killing program", October 17, 2013,http://www.washingtonpost.com. 51. Washington Post, "Documents reveal NSA's extensive involvement in targeted killing program", October 17, 2013. 52. Washington Post, "NSA collects millions of e-mail address books globally", October 15, 2013,http://www.washingtonpost.com. 53. Washington Post, "NSA collects millions of e-mail address books globally", October 15, 2013. 54. Washington Post, "NSA collects millions of e-mail address books globally", October 15, 2013. 55. Washington Post, "U.S. tells terror suspect it will use surveillance evidence, setting up possible legal challenge", October 26, 2013,http://www.washingtonpost.com. 56. Washington Post, "NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centres worldwide, Snowden documents say", October 30, 2013. 57. Washington Post, "NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centres worldwide, Snowden documents say", October 30, 2013. 58. The Guardian, "NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders after US official handed over contacts", October 25, 2013,http://www.theguardian.com. 59. Huffington Post, James Clapper: Spying on leaders not significant enough to tell Congress, October 30, 2013,http://www.huffingtonpost.com;New York Times, "Spying known at top levels, officials say", October 29, 2013,http://www.nytimes.com. 60. US Office of the Director of National Intelligence, DNI Clapper Declassifies Additional Intelligence Community Documents Regarding Collection Under Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, November 18, 2013, available athttp://www.odni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/964-dni-clapper-declassifies-additional-intelligence-community-documents-regarding-collection-under-section-501-of-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act-nov. 61. FISC declassified ruling available athttp://www.dni.gov/files/documents/1118/CLEANEDPRTT%201.pdf.

62. The Guardian, "Fisa court order that allowed NSA surveillance is revealed for first time", November 19, 2013,http://www.theguardian.com;New York Times, "Latest release of documents on N.S.A. includes 2004 ruling on email surveillance", November 18, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com. 63. Der Spiegel, "Declassified documents: NSA wanted to collect geolocation data", November 19, 2013,http://www.spiegel.de. 64. American Civil Liberties Union, "NSA reportedly sought to discredit 'radicals' by disclosing online sexual activities, visits to porn sites", November 27, 2013,http://www.aclu.org;Huffington Post, "Top-secret document reveals NSA spied on porn habits as part of plant to discredit 'radicalizers'", November 26, 2013,http://www.huffingtonpost.com. 65. Associated Press, "Kerry: Some NSA surveillance reached 'too far'", November 1, 2013.http://www.ap.org. 66. US Supreme Court, Order List: 571 U.S., November 18, 2013. 67. Section 1, an Act to add Section 145.5 to the Penal Code, relating to civil liberties, approved by Governor on October 1, 2013, Assembly Bill No. 351, Chapter 450. 68. See fn.67 above. 69. Hamad v. Gates, US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00591-MJP, Opinion of October 7, 2013. 70. USA v. Mohammad and others, Order on Defense Motion to Compel Discovery in Support of Defense Motion for Appropriate Relief to Compel Defense Examination of Accused''s Conditions of Confinement, No.AE 013BBB/108T, November 6, 2013. 71. ABC News, "Senate fails to advance to Defense Authorization Bill", November 21, 2013,http://www.abcnews.com. 72. Bill No.S.1197: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 73. "Senate Dems defeat Gitmo amendment", November 19, 2013 ,http://www.thehill.com. 74. Department of Defense, Detainee Transfer Announced, Release No.NR-047-13, December 5, 2013,http://www.defense.gov. 75. Ethics Abandoned: Medical Professionalism and Detainee Abuse in the "War on Terror", Task Force on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centers, Institute on Medicine as a Profession, November 2013. 76. Ethics Abandoned: Medical Professionalism and Detainee Abuse in the "War on Terror", November 2013. 77. Physicians for Human Rights, "Leading doctors ask president President Obama to end force-feeding and restore medical ethics at Guantanamo", November 5, 2013,http://www.physiciansforhumanrights.org. 78. Letter available

athttps://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_other/Letter-to-President-Obama-Guantanamo-November-2013.pdf. 79. BCCLA v. Attorney General, Notice of Civil Claim, October 22, 2013, available athttp://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-10-22-Notice-of-Civil-Claim.pdf. 80. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, SPYING IN CANADA: Civil Liberties Watchdog Sues Surveillance Agency Over Illegal Spying On Canadians, October 22, 2013,http://www.bbcla.org. 81. The Guardian, "Brazil accuses Canada of spying after NSA leaks", October 8, 2013,http://www.theguardian.com. 82. CBC News, "New Snowden docs show U.S. spied during G20 in Toronto", November 27, 2013,http://www.cbc.ca. 83. Public Summary available athttp://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/FC%20warrant%20Bulletin%20nov-25-2013%20_ENG_.pdf. 84. Public Summary available athttp://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/FC%20warrant%20Bulletin%20nov-25-2013%20_ENG_.pdf. 85. Public Summary available athttp://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/FC%20warrant%20Bulletin%20nov-25-2013%20_ENG_.pdf. 86. General Assembly resolution, The right to privacy in the digital age, UN Doc A/C.3/68/L.45/Rev.1, November 20, 2013. 87. Access, Amnesty International, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch, Privacy International, Open Letter from International Human Rights and Privacy Rights Organizations: "The United Nations General Assembly Must Uphold Individuals' Right to Privacy", November 20, 2013. 88. United Nations, "United Nations resolution on the right to privacy is a first step, says United Nations expert on freedom of expression", November 28, 2013,http://www.unog.ch. 89. General Assembly resolution, Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while counteringterrorism, UN Doc A/C.3/68/L.61/Rev.1, November 21, 2013, at [1]. 90. General Assembly resolution, Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while counteringterrorism, November 21, 2013, para.11. 91. Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, to the General Assembly, UN Doc A/68/382, September 13, 2013;Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while counteringterrorism, Ben Emmerson, to the General Assembly, UN Doc. A/68/389, September 18, 2013. 92. United Nations, Drone attacks: UN rights experts express concern about the potential illegal use of armed drones, October 25, 2013,http://www.unog.ch. 93. United Nations, Drone attacks: UN rights experts express concern about the potential illegal use of armed drones, October 25, 2013.

94. United Nations, Drone attacks: UN rights experts express concern about the potential illegal use of armed drones, October 25, 2013. 95. United Nations, Launch of global initiative on effective counter-terrorism investigations and prosecutions while respecting the rule of law and human rights, October 14, 2013,http://www.un.org. 96. See fn.95 above. 97. See fn.95 above. 98. See fn.95 above. 99. European Parliament resolution of October 23, 2013 on the suspension of the TFTP agreement as a result of US National Security Agency surveillance, Doc P7_TA(2013)0449. 100. Statement by Commissioner Malmstrom on the European Parliament's resolution on the EU-US TFTP agreement, Brussels, October 23, 2013 ,www.europa.eu. 101. SeeSpanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Summons Issued to the Ambassador of the United States in Spain, October 28, 2013,http://www.exteriores.gob.es; BBC News, "US bugged Merkel's phone from 2002 until 2013, report claims", October 27, 2013,http://www.bbc.co.uk;BBC News, "Snowden leaks; France summons US envoy over spying claims", October 21, 2013,http://www.bbc.co.uk;Il Fatto Quotidiano, "Datagate, L'Italia interecettata.Copasir e Garante della privacy: 'chiarire'", October 22, 2013,http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it. 102. See Council statement athttp://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/oct/eu-council-concl-24-25-oct-13-data-surveillance.pdf. 103. See Council statement athttp://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/oct/eu-council-concl-24-25-oct-13-data-surveillance.pdf 104. European Parliament resolution of October 10, 2013 on alleged transportation and illegal detention of prisoners in European countries by the CIA, Doc P7_TA(2013)0418. 105. See fn.104 above. 106. Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Human rights at risk when secret surveillance spreads, Human rights comment, October 24, 2013.