Thank you.
My questions are for Ms. Garwood-Filbert.
I'm going to be very specific, and I hope you'll answer my specific questions in very specific terms, madam.
I'm going to place before you three documents. They are marked 1, and then there's part 1(a), and there are 2 and 3. I'll pass these on to you, if someone will take them.
Madam, you have the documents. You have 1 and 1(a) in your hands. The subject of these documents is FW: KANDH-0039.
My questions are the same with respect to all of these three documents. The questions are, one, whether you attended during the visits that are specified for Sarposa in these documents; two, whether you wrote the document or you were consulted on writing the document; and three, whether these were Canadian detainees, because the indications are, I will point out to you, that they were; and four, whether each of the documents contained specific allegations of torture of those detainees. By themselves, yes, these are their allegations. But they're very specific allegations of torture.
So these are the four questions I have.
Let me take you through question one. If you look at document 1, it will tell you somewhere that you actually attended. On page 2 of document 1, right top, it says that Fairchild, Garwood-Filbert, and others attended in a follow-up visit. If you go to the first page, at the bottom it says, “We will also be advising MINA under cover of separate memorandum.” And I would ask Colleen Swords to perhaps tell me afterwards whether this was ever sent to the minister's office.
If you go to page 3 of document 1, it says, “Number of Canadian-transferred detainees present”. “Nature of inter-action with Canadian-transferred detainee(s). Approximately 20 minute private interview...”. “Inter-action with any other detainees.... None”. So all of the interaction that's specified, I would say, is about Canadian detainees.
If you go to the next page, which is not marked.... It's marked page 2 on the top. If you go to the middle of it, the fourth paragraph, it states; “One detainee...claimed to having been 'beaten with electrical cables while blindfolded' on one occasion...at the Kandahar NDS facility.” And then there's something about the medical: “...we withhold his name so as to avoid any possible” problems, because he requested that you withhold his name. That's the first document.
And 1(a) is part of that document in another redacted form. So 1(a) tells us that this document 1 originated on June 4, 2007, if you turn to page 2 of 1(a). On top it says June 5, 2007. So I'm assuming this document 1 is June 5 or 4 of 2007.
If you go to document 2, Madam, it states--document 2 is KANDH0138--“Number of Canadian-transferred detainees present”. Blacked out. “Number of Canadian-transferred detainees seen by officials on visit”. Blacked out. “Nature of interaction with Canadian-transferred detainee”. It says “private interview with...detainees”. Interaction with any other detainees...” Nil. So this report is also about Canadian detainees.
If you go to the bottom third of the second page, it says that this man was slapped in the face once or twice.
If you go to the next page, which is 3 at the bottom, about a third of the way down, “He claims he was interrogated on [blank] occasions while at NDS...and that he was beaten on [blank] of these occasions. He alleged that the interrogations were conducted by [blank]”. “...interrogation[s] lasted between 2 to 4 hours. He alleged that he was beaten several times with a cable and was told he would be [blank], He alleged that”. And that's that document, madam.
I'd like to know whether you wrote that or you were consulted on that.
My third document is document 3. The questions are the same.
Madam, if you look at the top of page 2, it says, “Number of Canadian-transferred detainees present”. Blank. Then in brackets: “there are CF-transferred detainees in the prison now serving sentences”. Then it says, “Number of Canadian-transferred detainees seen by officials on visit”. Blank. Then: “Interaction with any of the detainees”. Not applicable.
So I would assume that this was also a Canadian detainee. If you go to page 3, about a third of the way down, it says he “came to NDS but did not see him personally. ...saw him when at NDS”. Then he goes on to say, “He also used the words...torture”. He had been kept awake for [blank] days. He “was beaten badly but doesn't know with what as his eyes were covered. When asked what was used he said a power cable or wire and pointed to his side and buttocks. By torture he meant having been locked in the NDS [blank] and kept awake. When asked why he didn't come forward with this information previously he said he didn't trust us because we turned him over to NDS.”
I would like you to answer the questions that I posed initially to you on these documents, madam.