Extraordinary renditions: a practice beyond traditional justice

The present chapter examines extraordinary renditions (ERs) within the context of counter-terrorism measures during the post-9/11 era. In particular, from a comparative perspective, it addresses the approach of both the judiciary and the executive towards ERs, emphasizing, on the one hand, the common attitude of national governments to prevent litigation in courts of ER-related cases and, on the other hand, the excessively deferential stance adopted by domestic courts. The analysis aims at showing that victims of ERs are usually prevented from finding relief from their suffering in domestic courts, being forced to seek extra-judicial settlements with national governments or to file their complaints before regional courts. The introductive sections present a brief history of the practice ERs, within the wider framework of the “war on terror” and discuss its standing within the international legal order. The Chapter, then, focuses on alternative and substitutive remedies outlined above. Specifically, some emblematic cases are analyzed: in some of them, regional courts acted as a last resort forum for victims of ERs who could not find justice in domestic courts; in others, governments agreed to settle the claims out of court and paid monetary compensation to ERs victims. By comparing pro and cons of both approaches, the Chapter proposes an assessment of their effectiveness in terms of ensuring human rights and the rule of law.