Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 133: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs further to his statement in Dáil Éireann on 13 June, 2006, to the effect that the transfer of a prisoner in United States military custody through Shannon Airport would be lawful with the consent of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the provisions of domestic law under which a Minister would have power to consent to the transit in military custody through Irish territory of a person being transferred from military detention by the armed forces of another State based in one country to military detention by the same armed forces based in their home State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24202/06]

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 134: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs further to his statement in Dáil Éireann on 13 June 2006 to the effect that the transfer of a prisoner in United States military custody through Shannon Airport would be lawful with the consent of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, if he has withdrawn, amended, or qualified his reply to the secretary general of the Council of Europe dated 20 February 2006, in which he stated there were only two circumstances in which Irish law permits the authorities of another State to detain a prisoner on Irish territory and that it is not lawful for a Minister or the State to consent to the transit of a prisoner otherwise than in those two circumstances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24203/06]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 133 and 134 together.

There is no inconsistency between my statement to Dáil Éireann of 13 June 2006 and the Reply of the Government to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of February last. The question of the Government's withdrawing, amending or qualifying its Reply does not, therefore, arise. In its Reply, the Government stated that there were two circumstances under which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may consent to the transit of a prisoner through Irish territory. Specifically, one of these circumstances was where a prisoner is being transferred through Irish territory pursuant to Article 16 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.

Article 16 of the Convention, to which Ireland and the United States are parties, sets out matters relating to the transit of prisoners. Arrangements for such transits would, under the terms of the Convention, require the prior consent of the relevant authorities here which in this case would be the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. For the reasons stated by the US, this Convention was not invoked. Had it been, further information in relation to the transfer of the sentenced prisoner would, of course, have been sought by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

More generally, under customary international law, a State may not exercise its sovereign powers on the territory of another sovereign State, without the consent of that State. This principle includes the detention by a State of a prisoner on the territory of another State. As a result of this principle a number of international conventions dealing with subjects such as extradition and the transfer of sentenced persons have provided mechanisms through which a State which wished to transit a prisoner through the territory of another State can obtain the consent of that State (usually through its Minister for Justice) to such transit.

The Deputy will be aware that under Article 29 of the Constitution, Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States and the Article also deals with the use of executive power in that regard.