| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights, in three “extraordinary rendition” cases – Al Nashiri, Husayn, and Nasr – has defined the responsibility of complicit States for torture as a human rights violation, seeking to determine the points at which the European Court's jurisprudence intersects with and diverges from other bodies of law, including the general law on State responsibility. Two issues that resonate outside the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights are discussed, namely the application of the subjective knowledge element in respect of the different forms of complicity, and the manner of addressing the role of States that may be considered primarily responsible for torture but that are not parties to the relevant proceedings.
|