Court
European Court of Human Rights
Decided
July 24, 2014
Docket
Application no. 28761/11; ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0724JUD002876111
Judge
Chamber of the Fourth Section: Ineta Ziemele, President; Päivi Hirvelä; George Nicolaou; Ledi Bianku; Zdravka Kalaydjieva; Vincent A. De Gaetano; Krzysztof Wojtyczek.
Outcome
Relief granted
Disposition
Unanimously: the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion dismissed; Poland “failed to comply with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention”; violations of Article 3 in its procedural and its substantive aspect, of Articles 5, 8 and 13, and of Article 6 § 1; and a violation of Articles 2 and 3 taken with Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 “on account of the transfer of the applicant from the respondent State’s territory despite the existence of a real risk that he could be subjected to the death penalty”. EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment became final on 16 February 2015.
Nationality
Saudi Arabian national of Yemeni descent, born in 1965 (paragraphs 1 and 41). On 20 April 2011 United States military commission prosecutors brought capital charges against him over the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and the attack on the oil tanker MV Limburg in 2002 (paragraph 122).
Third country
United States custody. The CIA flew him into Poland on 5 December 2002 and out of Poland on 6 June 2003 on its rendition aircraft (paragraph 417). At the date of the judgment he was held at the Internment Facility at the United States Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba (paragraph 41).
The Court found it “established beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant arrived at Szymany on 5 December 2002 on the CIA rendition aircraft N63MU, was held from then until 6 June 2003 at the CIA detention facility at Stare Kiejkuty with the codename “Quartz”, was interrogated by the CIA and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques and to unauthorised techniques, and was flown out on the rendition aircraft N379P (paragraph 417). The treatment “amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 516).
Poland “knew of the nature and purposes of the CIA’s activities on its territory at the material time” and cooperated in them, and it “ought to have known that, by enabling the CIA to detain such persons on its territory, it was exposing them to a serious risk of treatment contrary to the Convention” (paragraph 442). The Court accepted the experts’ assessment that the torture was “the exclusive responsibility of the CIA” and that Polish officials were unlikely to have witnessed it, but held Poland responsible on account of its “acquiescence and connivance” in the programme (paragraph 517).
On the transfer, it held that “by enabling the CIA to transfer the applicant to its other secret detention facilities, the Polish authorities exposed him to a foreseeable serious risk of further ill-treatment and conditions of detention in breach of Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 518), and that “at the time of the applicant’s transfer from Poland there was a substantial and foreseeable risk that he could be subjected to the death penalty following his trial before the military commission” (paragraph 578).
Under Article 46 it required Poland “to seek to remove that risk as soon as possible, by seeking assurances from the US authorities that he will not be subjected to the death penalty” (paragraph 589).
Caution
The judgment decides Poland’s responsibility under the Convention; the United States is not a party to the Convention or to the case. The Court’s findings of fact rest on evidence assessed as a whole, and it held that Poland had failed to comply with Article 38. The Committee of Ministers’ supervision of the judgment is set out on the Coalition’s page on Poland.
Extraordinary rendition
Secret detention
Article 3 ECHR
Death penalty
Flagrant denial of justice
Effective investigation
Diplomatic assurances
The court's own text
Public copy
Read in full in the English text on HUDOC (item 001-146044) on 8 November 2026.
This entry describes a court decision. It is a summary for readers who are learning how these cases work, not legal advice, and it does not tell anyone what to do in their own case. A decision may have been appealed, stayed, or superseded since this entry was written.
← All decisions in the register