National Defence committee  The first question that I'll deal with is the death penalty. Our arrangement with Afghanistan does preclude the death penalty being applied to any detainee we transfer.

National Defence committee  Yes, and this is one of the reasons why I would like us to be considering this to be a treaty. If we consider this to be a treaty, then they are legally bound not to apply the death penalty. If it's simply a code of conduct, then they are not legally bound to refuse to apply the death penalty.

National Defence committee  Mr. Neve is a better spokesman on this issue because Amnesty International tracks very closely the records of different countries. Afghanistan is in a part of the world where there are a number of countries with serious human rights records. Mr. Neve has mentioned the recent problems the United States has had, and I certainly had concerns about the practice of transferring directly to U.S. custody when we were doing that because of things like Guantanamo Bay.

National Defence committee  On the first question, there are some unusual aspects to this situation. Yes, it was unusual for the Chief of Defence Staff to sign an arrangement like this. It should have been done by the ambassador to Afghanistan. It doesn't mean that it's fatally flawed, but it is unusual.

National Defence committee  With all respect, Ms. Black, the current government has only been in power for ten months. This was entered into by the previous government, and I'm hopeful that the current government will realize that some improvements are needed to a job that was done by another government. I think there's a real opportunity here for the current government to rectify a problematic situation.

National Defence committee  They could be a number of different things. They could be terrorists. They could be insurgents. They could be common criminals. They are detained on the battlefield or in the proximity of the battlefield, and that's perfectly appropriate. It's also perfectly appropriate, in accordance with international law, for them to be interrogated--not tortured, not abused, but interrogated.

National Defence committee  The ICRC's policy of discretion is what makes the ICRC so effective. It gets access, even from the most repressive of regimes, because those regimes know that the ICRC will not turn around and tell other people what's going on. The discretion and the confidentiality is why the ICRC gets access to prisoners.

National Defence committee  It would be a concern regardless of the degree of our implication. But given that we are detaining people and transferring them under an inadequate agreement, I do feel some urgency in pleading with the committee to recommend a renegotiation of this agreement to match the terms of the Dutch agreement.

National Defence committee  I take the view that my suggestions are so patently reasonable that you should send a letter now.

National Defence committee  As far as I know, they do not have a detention capacity that's any better than what the Canadians have. In fact, they're probably using the same detention capacity at Kandahar airfield. But they do have a stronger agreement that ensures that any detainees they transfer can be followed up by right of access--not by discretion of the Afghan authorities, but by right.

National Defence committee  That is exactly it. I fully support the development of indigenous Afghan governmental capacity. In fact, by holding the Afghan authorities to the highest standards, liaising with them and following up, we're actually helping them to build up to meet our expectations. The other thing is that although Alex was talking about problems in U.S. custody, the reason we need protections against onward transfers could hypothetically extend beyond concerns in terms of U.S. treatment.

National Defence committee  Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for inviting me to speak with you on the matter of the Canada–Afghanistan arrangement for the transfer of detainees. My remarks today focus on the arrangement's effectiveness in guarding against the possibility of torture. I've worked on the issue of torture since 1992, when the development of the legal prohibition against torture formed part of my PhD thesis at Cambridge University.