## Facts

- Zayn al‑Abidin Muhammad Husayn (also known as Abu Zubaydah), a stateless Palestinian, was captured in Pakistan in March 2002 and placed in U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) custody.
- He was held in the CIA’s secret detention program and subjected to coercive interrogation methods, including waterboarding and other severe physical and psychological abuse.
- In early December 2002, he was transported by aircraft to Poland, arriving at Szymany airport, and then taken by vehicle to a secret detention facility used by the CIA at or near Stare Kiejkuty.
- He was held there incommunicado, outside any judicial process, under conditions of total secrecy, until 22 September 2003, when he was removed from Poland and transferred to other CIA detention sites.
- The applicant produced evidence suggesting a bilateral arrangement between Polish authorities and the CIA under which Poland provided security for the facility, maintained secrecy, and did not interfere with CIA activities at the site.
- The applicant also relied on public reports and statements by Polish, U.S., and European officials, and testimony (including by specialists) indicating that Polish officials knew or should have known that the facility was used to hold and mistreat “high‑value detainees.”
- After public allegations emerged, Polish authorities opened a criminal investigation, but it proceeded for years with limited public scrutiny and did not result in a clear account of events or accountability for those responsible during the period addressed by the Court.
- By the time of the judgment, the applicant remained in U.S. custody at Guantánamo Bay.

## Issues

1. Whether Poland had jurisdiction and Convention responsibility for the applicant’s secret detention and ill‑treatment on Polish territory, even though the direct acts were carried out by CIA personnel.
2. Whether Poland violated Article 3 by enabling or tolerating the applicant’s torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, and by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
3. Whether Poland violated Article 3 (procedural) by failing to conduct an effective investigation into credible allegations of secret detention and ill‑treatment.
4. Whether Poland violated Article 5 by allowing unacknowledged detention outside any legal framework.
5. Whether Poland violated Article 8 by enabling secret detention that severed contact with the outside world.
6. Whether Poland violated Article 13 by failing to provide an effective domestic remedy for the alleged violations.
7. Whether Poland violated Article 6 (in its removal/transfer aspect) by enabling the applicant’s transfer from its territory in circumstances creating a real risk of a flagrantly unfair trial.
8. Whether Poland failed to comply with its duty of cooperation with the Court under Article 38 by not providing requested material relevant to the Court’s fact‑finding.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights held that Poland bore responsibility under the Convention for the applicant’s treatment and detention on its territory because Polish authorities facilitated and acquiesced in the CIA’s operations at the secret site.
- The Court found Poland violated:
  - Article 3 (substantive) because the applicant was subjected to treatment amounting to torture and inhuman or degrading treatment while held at the CIA site in Poland, and Poland enabled the operation and failed to protect him.
  - Article 3 (procedural) because the domestic investigation into the CIA site and the applicant’s alleged mistreatment was not effective.
  - Article 5 because the applicant was held in secret, unregistered detention without legal basis or safeguards.
  - Article 8 because the detention regime eliminated contact with family and the outside world and intruded on private life in a grave way.
  - Article 13, in conjunction with Articles 3, 5, and 8, because there was no effective remedy in Poland for the applicant to challenge the violations or obtain redress.
  - Article 6 § 1 (removal/transfer dimension) because Poland’s cooperation in the applicant’s transfer contributed to exposing him to a real risk of proceedings that would amount to a flagrant denial of justice.
  - Article 38 because Poland did not provide the Court with sufficient cooperation in relation to evidence needed for the examination of the case.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction for non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, and indicated that Poland remained obliged to take steps consistent with the judgment, including pursuing an effective investigation.

## Legal Principles

- A Contracting State’s obligations apply throughout its territory; a State may be responsible for Convention violations committed by foreign agents where the State knowingly allows, assists, or acquiesces in the foreign operation on its territory.
- Article 3 is absolute. Where authorities know or ought to know of a real risk of torture or ill‑treatment within their jurisdiction, they must take reasonable measures to prevent it and cannot avoid responsibility by pointing to the control exercised by another State.
- Secret, unacknowledged, incommunicado detention outside any legal framework is a grave breach of Article 5 and strips the detainee of basic safeguards such as access to a court and legal assistance.
- When there are credible allegations of torture, secret detention, or enforced disappearance‑type practices, Article 3 requires a prompt, independent, and effective investigation capable of establishing the facts and identifying and punishing those responsible.
- Article 13 requires an effective remedy in domestic law for arguable Convention claims, including remedies capable of establishing responsibility and providing appropriate redress.
- A State may violate the Convention by participating in a chain of events that foreseeably exposes a person to a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice in the receiving State (Article 6 in the context of transfer/removal).
- Under Article 38, a respondent State must cooperate with the Court’s examination of a case, including by providing relevant information and documents requested for fact‑finding.

## Conclusion

In *Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland*, the ECtHR held that Poland violated multiple Convention rights by enabling the CIA to detain and mistreat the applicant at a secret site on Polish territory, by failing to carry out an effective investigation or provide remedies, and by facilitating his transfer in circumstances that exposed him to further serious rights risks.


Case of Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, Application No. 7511/13 (2014)