Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 133: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will comment on the inconsistency of his statements with regard to US use of Irish air space and ground-based facilities as against its operation of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility; the reason he is content to accept one form of diplomatic assurance while unwilling to accept another emanating from the US Administration on a congruent subject; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8310/06]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The two issues raised by the Deputy are separate and need to be considered on their merits, as the Government has done. On Guantanamo Bay, the Government's position on the condition and status of detainees is clear and has been consistently conveyed to the United States authorities. The United States has set out its general approach to the issue on many occasions. The Government's position, on the other hand, is as set out by me in the House on 22 February, namely, that we fully endorse the views of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, that those held in Guantanamo Bay should either be charged or released and that the United States should close the facility.

The position with respect to allegations of extraordinary rendition is completely different. In this matter, the Government has sought and received explicit assurances from the US Government. These state that prisoners have not been, nor would they be, transferred through Irish territory without the express permission of the Irish authorities. It has been made clear by the Government that, in conformity with the relevant domestic and international law, permission would not be granted for the transit of an aircraft participating in an extraordinary rendition operation or for any other unlawful act.

The Government has carefully considered the value of these assurances having regard to their obligations under international law. This has included an examination of the European Court of Human Rights' consideration of a contracting party's entitlement to rely on diplomatic assurances made to it by a third state in the different context of extradition or expulsion of known individuals to that state. The Government is satisfied that it is entitled under international law to rely on clear and explicit factual assurances given by the government of a friendly state on a matter which is within the direct control of that government.