Mr President,

Sweden aligns herself with the statement made by the EU-delegation. We would like to thank the Special Rapporteurs and the Working Groups for their comprehensive and thought-provoking report on secret detention.

Sweden underlines its strong support for the independence of all Special Procedure mandate holders. How the mandate holders wish to organize their work to achieve implementation of their mandates is for the mandate holders themselves to decide, and Sweden encourages States to invite and actively cooperate with the Special Procedure mandate holders. Sweden notes the mention in the report of the cases of Mohammed Alzery and Ahmed Agiza and we continue to take the criticism we have received on these cases seriously. In this regard we would like to mention the damage compensation that was given to them by the Swedish authorities.

In your study you describe that the generalized fear of secret detention and its corollaries, such as torture and ill-treatment, tends to effectively result in limiting the exercise of a large number of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression. You also express extreme concern about the fact that many victims of secret detention from countries around the world indicated that they fear personal reprisals or against their families, if they cooperate with the study or allow their names to be used. Sweden attaches great importance to the right of freedom of expression and we are most concerned about your findings on how the practise of secret detention is limiting this human right. Could you elaborate on the relation described in the study, namely how the practise of secret detention threatens the right to freedom of expression? Also, could you tell us about which actions you would recommend states to perform in order to prevent and counter this implication of the practise of secret detention?

To the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment:

Professor Nowak, Sweden is deeply concerned with the scope of violations against the ban on torture, a core prohibition of international law. We share your view that secret detention could be used to facilitate torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment which is why secret detention is totally unacceptable and may as such constitute violations of international humanitarian law (if under an armed conflict) and a State’s human rights obligations and can not be derogated from in any circumstances. Beyond facilitating torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, could you elaborate on whether and if so how secret detention in and of itself could reach the threshold of amounting to such treatment according to article 1 of CAT?

Before I finish, let me reiterate Sweden’s support for your mandates, and extend our gratitude for the work you have carried out already and our best wishes for the work ahead of you.

Thank you, Mr President.