Since Mr. George W. Bush declared the "war on terrorism", and since the imposition of completely arbitrary sanctions by the Security Council of the UN, tens of thousands of innocent people - primarily of the Muslim faith - have been either imprisoned and subjected to torture, or wrongly registered on "terrorist" lists and deprived of their assets and their freedom of movement. The case of an Italian businessman, of Egyptian origin, Mr. Youssef Nada, largely unknown to the public, has drawn our attention because, it is emblematic of this unjust policy of sanctions, which deprives people who have done nothing, of their freedom and their means of living, and unfortunately Switzerland continues to take part in this.
All European countries, so quick to give lessons to other countries on their non-observance of human rights, were made accomplices of this policy by applying without batting an eyelid, the sanctions of the Security Council, under the pretext that they were expected to. They knew them, never-the-less, to be contrary to the basic rights guaranteed by their own legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights.
We think that no nation should be expected to apply these sanctions, which according to procedures do not allow for any effective jurisdictional recourse. By drawing up "black lists" based on unchecked and generally untrue denunciations, and by applying these sanctions, the Security Council of the United Nations has been made an instrument of the "anti-terrorism" policies of the United States.
In any civilized country, the right to be heard, the right to appeal to an independent legal authority, the right to a fair trial, and the principle of proportionality are basic principles. We think that, as soon as this international decision-making body, whose goals are to affirm the principles of peace, tolerance and justice, resorted to means which do not respect basic principles, and restrict individual freedom, democratic countries should have rejected its decisions.
Switzerland, the depositary country of the Geneva Conventions, should have regarded as its mission the denunciation of abuses in which the UN has involved all nations, and should have opposed this illegal situation. It did not. Even though it intervened, with other countries, in order to ask for improvements to the procedure of "listing" and of "de-listing", it has chosen to align itself with the European States by putting on its national list the names that appear on the UN’s list. It continues to apply sanctions against people that its own investigations show had nothing to do with terrorism, like for example the case of the banker Youssef Nada, this, on the grounds that it "is expected to apply sanctions decided upon by the Security Council, and to block the holdings of the people appearing on the list, drawn up by the aforementioned Council"; what we dispute.
As such Switzerland is abdicating its responsibilities by accepting an unjust international order which violates the basic rights of the individual.
Actually, Switzerland should never have carried out the seizure of Mr. Nada’s assets, nor have opened a criminal procedure against him, since the United States - which registered his name on the terrorist list - had no credible charge against him.
Today, after seven humiliating years and incalculable worries, and in spite of the fact that he was proven innocent, Mr. Nada’s ordeal is not over. Mr. Nada runs up against insurmountable obstacles, owing to the fact that Switzerland continues to freeze his assets and to apply a travel ban, which in fact, puts him under house arrest.
Mr. Nada says that he will not be able to rest as long as justice is not done. For him, there is a sense of urgency because, at 77 years of age, he feels his strength declining, and a sense of a moral obligation that all the wrong done to him might be redressed.
In view of this situation, which is a disgrace to Switzerland, we questioned Mrs. Calmy-Rey, head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and the advisers and diplomats expected to follow this case. The answers given regarding their inaction in this case, which is of direct concern to them, were unfortunately only pseudo explanations.
Switzerland contents itself with repeating; that it is expected to apply UN sanctions; that it is awaiting the European Court of Human Right’s decision (in February 2008, Mr. Nada appealed to the CHR, against the decision of the Federal Supreme Court of November 14, 2007, which stipulates that Switzerland is bound by the decisions on sanctions made by the Security Council of the UN); and that everything else Italy has to act on, and as such it washes its hands of the affair. This is unacceptable.
We refute this kind of argument. Such is the intention of this open letter which we have addressed to Mrs. Calmy-Rey, and which we have reproduced here in full.
* * * * *
Madam Federal Councillor,
On 20th June 2008, I sent you an open letter  setting out that I could not understand why the Swiss Confederation applies the UN Security Council sanctions against Mr. Nada, since these sanctions violate the very humanitarian principles which for Switzerland stands.
In this letter, I underlined, as something particularly concerning, the fact that the Swiss authorities continue to deny Mr. Nada the authorisation to visit, in Switzerland or in Italy, the specialised doctors which his health condition urgently requires because he continues to be detained under house arrest. According to international human rights law, no one shall be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and every citizen shall remain, in all circumstances, under the protection of the rule of law. Any deviation from these principles on the part of our country would be a betrayal of the values it claims to defend.
Thank you for your detailed response to my letter on 1 July 2008 .
I asked Mr. Nada, who has been seriously injured and affected by this case, to let me know what he felt upon reading your response; here is his reply:
“When justice is politicized, the credibility of democracy and the rule of law are questioned. It is the lack of political courage which leads to unfair situations where nothing is ever resolved.
You were presenting my specific case to Mrs. Calmy-Rey as an example of the injustice which innocent people are facing due to draconian measures ordered by the UN Security Council and implemented by democratic countries although they are contrary to the UN human rights Declaration and contrary to the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as Swiss human rights law.
However Mrs. Calmy-Rey only considered the obligation of Switzerland to implement the Security Council resolutions.
You were discussing the case of an innocent man who did not break any law, who is neither a criminal nor a terrorist, nor assisted nor was associated with terrorists. A man whose assets are blocked; who is barred from entering, or transiting, a foreign territory ; who is put under house arrest in 1,6 SqKm ; who has been stripped of his human rights ; who has been humiliated and degraded.
For a 77 year old man, waiting for the result of an appeal from the European Court of Human Rights or other court, is a slow death sentence.”
With due respect, your answer also leaves me deeply troubled. It is limited, for the most part, to explain, in a rather formal manner, the obligation for Switzerland to apply the Council of Security sanctions. Your response makes no mention of the means or methods by which Switzerland would not be bound by them, insofar as these resolutions violate fundamental rights. It does not even consider the possibilities that Switzerland might have to ease the UN sanctions, particularly regarding the freedom of movement of Mr. Nada.
Your silence regarding this humanitarian aspect is particularly concerning. The suffering inflicted on Mr. Nada by the repeated refusal of our authorities to approve his travel requests do not seem to concern you.
M. Nada is old and he is sick. He is no longer entitled to a dignified life . Since we met him, in May, we are disheartened. We cannot accept that our country refuses someone access to required medical care, and who is, moreover, a victim of judicial aberration spending the never-ending and uncertain outcome of legal appeals.
This is not acceptable! Was Mr. Dick Marty right when he said: “The treatment of the case of Mr. Youssef Nada is no honour to our country”?
The sanctions which you consider necessary to be applied against Mr. Nada are unjustifiable, not only in moral terms, but also in terms of the law because they violate fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the State under Swiss law.
Yet, since 2001, Mr. Nada has spared no efforts to seek justice. After the closure of the file by the Prosecutor of the Confederation, on May 31st, 2005, and until now, Mr. Nada, alone, without real support from our political authorities, has sought in vain to remove his name from the “black list” established by the Security Council, and transcribed on the Swiss list.
It is in vain that Mr. Nada contacted the SECO, the Ministry of Economics, the Federal Council, and the point of contact within the United Nations Security Council, directly and through Italy. It is in vain that he sought permission to visit his country, Italy, to fulfil legal obligations caused by the false allegations of which he was the unfortunate victim. It is in vain that he sought, from the Swiss Immigration office (official name is Federal Office for Migration), permission to receive medical treatment.
To all of his painful demands, Mr. Nada was given an inhuman refusal.
Mr. Nada presented his case to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, and the court considered, in its ruling of 14th November 2007 , that Switzerland was not allowed to waive the Council of Security sanctions despite the fact that Mr. Nada’s rights were breached. But it requested Switzerland support Mr. Nada’s effort to have his name de-listed:
“In this case, the question that is raised is that, because Switzerland cannot de-list the appellant by itself it is obliged to at least support his procedure for de-listing. During the first stages the question of whether Switzerland should start the de-listing procedure for the appellant was examined. This question is now overcome since the amendment of the de-listing regulations enables the presentation of a personal application, and he is making use of this possibility . The backing of Switzerland is absolutely needed to ensure the success of his application because it is the only country which has conducted an in-depth prosecution including several legal assistances, house searches, and interrogating witnesses. (...)It is true that the state which conducted the commission of inquiry or the investigations cannot by itself undertake the de-listing, but it can, at least, inform the Sanctions Committee of its results and support for the concerned person’s request to be de-listed.”
It also asked the Swiss authorities to consider the margins of manoeuvre they might have - especially for health reasons or for judicial procedures - for lifting or easing the travel ban imposed on Mr. Nada:
“What must also be examined is whether the travel ban included in article 4a of the Taliban Ordinance exceeds what is imposed by the Security Council Resolutions and, in this case, Switzerland has some margins of manoeuvre.
Article 4.1 prohibits those who are listed in Appendix 2 from entering or transiting Switzerland. Article 4.2 of the Taliban Ordinance stipulates that the Federal Office for Migration can authorise exceptions in conformity with the Security Council resolutions or that which could safeguard Swiss interests. According to the Security Council resolutions, a travel ban cannot be implemented if entry or transit is necessary for legal procedures. In this regard exceptions could be obtained on a case by case basis with the Sanctions Committee (compare article 1b resolution 1735 (2006). According to this article, travel for health and religious reasons is authorised (Brown Institute, aaO.s.32).
In article 4a point 2 of Taliban Ordinance, the expression “could” gives the understanding that the Federal Office for Migration has room to act. The instructions could be explained in accordance with the constitution and, in all the cases in which the exceptions are granted by the UN sanctions, it should be permitted.
An exaggerated reduction of the appellant’s travel ban cannot be based on Security Council resolutions, cannot be justified as being by public interest, and would be disproportionate with regards to the appellant’s particular situation.
He lives in Campione, an Italian enclave of around 1.6 sq km. The travel and transit ban means that he can’t leave Campione, which in practise, as the appellant rightly explained it, is close to being house arrest and constitutes a severe limitation of his freedom. In this situation the Swiss authorities have an obligation to exhaust all facilities authorised by the UN sanctions regime. The Federal Office for Migration does not, by itself, have room to manoeuvre but rather, should examine whether the conditions to accord an exception exist. If the application is not covered by one of the general exceptions decided by the Security Council then a request should be submitted for approval by the Sanctions Committee.”
Madam the Minister, what have the Swiss authorities done to assist Mr. Nada in becoming a free man again? Did they, as they were invited to by the court, exhaust “all the facilities allowed by the sanction regime according to the UN resolutions”? Did they consider “whether the conditions to give exception exist», and did they submit “an application to the Sanctions Committee for its approval”?
To our knowledge, not enough has been done. Certainly, some steps have been taken by the Swiss government with other governments and also, if we are not mistaken, with the Watson Institute, to make proposals concerning the legality of the listing and de-listing to the Security Council. But, they were, it seems, quite timid. In any case, they were rejected. Therefore, the question remains completely unanswered. Indeed, in reality, Mr. Nada remains under house arrest even though he is innocent. Prolonging this situation under any pretext is absolutely unacceptable.
M. Nada deserves better treatment. Mr. Nada and his associate, Mr. Himmat, have nothing to do with terrorism. It was established by the investigations conducted by Switzerland that this perfectly honourable man, an engineer by training and a banker by profession, whose career has been brutally shattered by sanctions, is completely innocent, and has never infringed any law. He is not a “terrorist”; he has never supported terrorism; he has never been associated with “terrorists”. He therefore does not presents a risk with regard to what you seem to consider as meeting “the legitimate needs of the community of states to protect themselves against further acts of terrorism.”
On the subject of his charisma, his competence, and his integrity, we are in possession of many testimonies, all very positive, which we have reproduced in note .
Already in his judgement of 31 May 2005, the General Prosecutor referred to Mr. Nada and his associate’s personalities in terms which are full of esteem: “the picture that emerges unanimously from these hearings is one of respectable and cultivated businessmen. (…) No one among the people who have been heard when gathering information have questioned, as little as it may be, the integrity of the accused persons; all have agreed to say that neither Youssef Nada, nor Ali Himmat  could be supporters of a terrorist ideology and, therefore, they could not be related to a terrorist organisation.”
A fundamental question arises. To what extent can the Swiss Confederation, which defines itself as a State abiding by the rule of law, continue to apply UN sanctions, while knowing that they do not conform to Swiss law, and excuse themselves from examining the implications of that injustice, under the pretext that, as you wrote “Switzerland is obliged to implement the decisions of the Security Council?”
It is, moreover, a question that Mr. Dick Marty has already asked: “Can states really be obliged to execute sanctions which infringe fundamental rights to such an extent? Are they not rather under the obligation to refuse applying them as contrary to their ordre public and to other international obligations – such as the European Convention on Human Rights – which, contrary to the decisions of the Security Council’s sanctions committee, have a democratic basis? ” 
The fact that you mentioned in your letter the appeal against the judgement of the Court of First Instance, introduced by Mr. Kadi  before the European Court of Justice, shows that you know very well that this question arises. But we must point out here that Mr. Nada’s situation is different from that of Mr. Kadi - and from the situation of other people who have been the subject of European Court judgements  - on a very important point that greatly increases Switzerland’s responsibility towards Mr. Nada.
Indeed, Mr. Nada is the only person to have been pursued, with legal assistance on a global scale, and whose case has, moreover, been closed for lack of evidence.
But, is it not unseemly to rely on the fact that, in Mr. Kadi’s case , “the Court of Justice has not yet given its judgment” to justify your wait-and-see attitude, when, here and now, the opinion delivered to the Court by the Advocate General, Mr. Poiares Maduro, considers that “the contested regulation” (the European black list) “infringes the right to be heard, the right to judicial review, and the right to property” of Mr. Kadi .
Why, Madam, should a sovereign state await the outcome of any such judgement before deciding itself what is lawful?
The opinion given to the Court in this appeal by the Advocate General, Mr. Maduro, deserves our attention, because it deals with the legality of these UN "blacklists" adopted successively by States.
In the first part of his opinion, Mr. Maduro examines the legal basis of the regulation by which the Council of the European Union has implemented the decision to freeze the assets of persons suspected of terrorism in the European Community.
It shows that the regulation “was adopted on the basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC” while the Court of First Instance which dismissed Mr. Kadi’s case “considered that the powers to impose economic and financial sanctions provided for by Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, namely, the interruption or reduction of economic relations with one or more third countries, do not cover the interruption or reduction of economic relations with individuals within those countries, but only with their governing regimes. That view is difficult to reconcile with the wording and the purpose of those provisions.”
So, on this specifically juridical point, Mr. Maduro reaches the following conclusion:
“My conclusion, therefore, is that the judgment of the Court of First Instance is vitiated by an error in law. If the Court were to follow my analysis concerning the legal basis it would have enough ground to set aside the judgment under appeal. I none the less believe that, where pleas are raised concerning alleged breaches of fundamental rights, it is preferable for the Court to make use of the possibility of reviewing those pleas as well, both for reasons of legal certainty and in order to prevent a possible breach of fundamental rights from subsisting in the Community legal order, albeit by virtue of a measure that merely has a different form or legal basis. I shall accordingly proceed to assess the appellant’s remaining pleas in law.”
Mr. Maduro then examines the Community Court’s jurisdictional competence to review whether the contested regulation breaches fundamental rights. He considers that the Community courts have the jurisdiction to determine whether the regulation breaches fundamental rights and, consequently, that the Court of First Instance “erred in law in holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the contested regulation in the light of fundamental rights that are part of the general principles of Community law.”
Finally, he concentrates “on the principal aspect of the case, namely the issue whether the contested regulation infringes the appellant’s fundamental rights”, stressing that “the fact that the measures at issue are intended to suppress international terrorism should not inhibit the Court from fulfilling its duty to preserve the rule of law.”
After having established that there had been a violation of Mr. Kadi’s rights to defend his case (due to no possibility being given to the person accused of supporting terrorism to make known his observations, nor any obligation on the Sanctions Committee to provide access to the information on which the decision was based to include the accused person in the black list), Mr. Maduro reaches the following conclusion:
“The right to effective judicial protection holds a prominent place in the firmament of fundamental rights (…) it is unacceptable in a democratic society to impair the very essence of that right. (…) Had there been a genuine and effective mechanism of judicial control by an independent tribunal at the level of the United Nations, then this might have released the Community from the obligation to provide for judicial control of implementing measures that apply within the Community legal order. However, no such mechanism currently exists. (…) As a consequence, the Community institutions cannot dispense with proper judicial review proceedings when implementing the Security Council resolutions in question within the Community legal order. It follows that the appellant’s claim that the contested regulation infringes the right to be heard, the right to judicial review, and the right to property is well founded. The Court should annul the contested regulation in so far as it concerns the appellant.”
Mr. Maduro demonstrates therefore, in juridical terms, what simple common sense suggests. That is to say : it is unacceptable that democratic states implement Security Council resolutions that violate citizens’ rights, and do not take responsibility upon themselves to guarantee these rights; this under the pretext that they would be incompetent to conduct a judicial review of these resolutions, stating, as you do, that they have no other choice but to implement them!
You say it is important that Switzerland implements the decisions of the Security Council. We are convinced that Switzerland can and should tell the UN: “Switzerland can no longer continue to subscribe to such a policy.” For, if the means used by the Security Council and the UN are contrary to law, Switzerland is not obliged to implement them.
And if, as a result of such an attitude on the part of Switzerland, the current system of sanctions would “lose all credibility”, as you fear, would it be necessary to regret the disappearance of a contrivance which, in reality, has already deprived, by its denial of any rights, the fight against terrorism of any credibility?
Switzerland bears a large responsibility for Mr. Nada’s long ordeal. The suffering endured by Mr. Nada, because of multiple failures of our justice system are ineffaceable. Switzerland should at least make them stop.
The prosecution by Switzerland against Mr. Nada, not only ruined his bank and destroyed his life, but, as shown by the chronology given below, lasted longer than reasonable: from 7 November 2001 to 31 May 2005. It also violated at least four conditions of the UN guidelines on prosecutors, notably the one that indicates a prosecutor “shall not initiate or continue prosecution, or shall make every effort to stay proceedings, when an impartial investigation shows the charge to be unfounded”, and the condition that obliges it to present the accused with the charges of which he is accused.
The Federal Prosecutor, Valentin Roschacher, and his deputy, Claude Nicati, have made other serious mistakes, including communicating to many countries the information, totally false, that “Mr. Nada had been financing Al Qaeda since 1981”. Under the influence of the FBI, the Treasury and the CIA, they falsely claimed, in November 2004, to have sufficient evidence of “Mr.Nada’s involvement in the financing of terrorism”. They ordered spectacular searches in Mr. Nada and Mr. Himmat’s offices and homes when there was no charge which justified them, except whimsical allegations of an article in the Corriere della Sera , which then brought on an irreparable disaster: the immediate collapse of their bank and the ruin of their lives.
I recall here the chronology of this nightmare.
Legal assistance was sought from 10 countries: the USA, the United Kingdom, Liechtenstein, Italy, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Austria, the Bahamas and others in the Middle East.
The Prosecutor sent a letter to other countries, to tell them that Mr. Nada had been financing Al Qaeda since 1981 (whereas historians and security reports date the creation of Al Qaeda back to 1988). He has repeated this numerous times, which indicates, either a fabrication, or a lack of knowledge, or a fraud.
On 7th November 2001, the Prosecutor ordered raids on Youssef Nada’s offices and home, and investigators took every document or item of electronic data which they found.
On 27th November 2001, he went to Washington and, when he returned to Bern, he declared having obtained all the necessary information and documents.
But, on 23rd January 2002, he sent a letter to Washington saying that he was disappointed with the information he had received.
A team of American investigators from the FBI and the US treasury and the CIA came to Bern on April 2nd, 2002 to assist the Prosecutor.
On 26th June 2003, the American FBI let the Prosecutor know that the information found in their database was the information which he had been given, and that currently, they had no on-going investigations on Mr. Nada.
Mr Zarate, of the US Treasury, came to Bern four times to press for the file to be kept open.
Mr. Ashcroft came to Bern in January 2004, and then Mr. Gonzales, and both brought the same pressure to bear.
On 17th November 2004, the Swiss government informed the US Treasury Department (OFAC) that, according to the Swiss Attorney General, sufficient evidence for Mr. Nada’s involvement in terrorism financing had been found, which was absolutely wrong.
Several times Mr. Nada asked the Prosecutor to present him to the court or to close the file, but the latter always refused. Thus, Mr. Nada sued the Prosecutor.
In April 2005, the Federal Supreme Court, in its ruling, declared that Mr. Nada was right, and reproached the Prosecutor, setting him a final deadline to submit evidence or to close the file:
“According to article 32 of the Constitution and article 6 paragraph 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the accused has the right to be informed without delay and accurately about the crimes of which he is accused, and as a principle it is not allowed to keep the accused in the dark regarding the investigation, and he must be informed of what he is accused.
- The prosecutor did not give proof of banking operations carried out by the accused, by which money could have reached or be transferred to persons or groups considered as belonging to Islamic terrorism.
- After more than three years of in-depth interrogations and investigations and legal assistance, we expected that something precise would be said, about a banking operation undertaken by the accused through which the association or the support to a terrorist organisation was proven at least in an objective manner. Evidence needed to be presented. If the prosecutor has any evidence against the accused he should present them to the instructing judge, by the end May 2005 at the latest, otherwise he will have to close the file.”
It is therefore thanks to his tenacity that Mr. Nada obtained the closure of his file from the Federal Prosecutor, on 31st May 2005, for lack of evidence.
It is deplorable that nothing has changed in Mr. Nada’s situation, since the day that the Court declared him innocent.
It is also deplorable that neither the Federal Supreme Court, nor your government has ever mentioned the humiliating and degrading position in which Mr. Nada was put, because of the unjustified listing of his name on the “black list” of those alleged “associates and financiers of terrorism.”
This position is nevertheless clearly covered by “Jus Cogens”, peremptory norms of human rights which must never be violated, even by UN Security Council resolutions based on chapter 7.
It has also to be stressed that, after having ruled that the government was not to remove Mr. Nada from the Swiss list, until it has been removed from the UN Security Council list, the Federal Supreme Court based a large part of its ruling on previous European Court of Justice rulings on cases which have been later revised in the Court of Appeal , but the problem is that it is not possible to appeal a Federal Supreme Court ruling.
All this should lead the Swiss government to recognize its errors and to provide reparations for the wrongs that Mr. Nada, his associates and their families, have had to endure since 2001.
Our country should follow the example of the Canadian government which, in the case of Mr. Maher Arar whose life was ruined by reports from the Canadian authorities to the United States – presented him with a formal apology in 2006 . And offered him the sum of 10.5 million dollars in compensation for the ordeal and injuries suffered by him and his family; and an additional 1 million dollars for legal costs.
Will Switzerland prove able to apologize and provide reparations, as in the example of the Canadian government? And demonstrate its ethical commitment by acts which render full justice to Mr. Nada and to those who find are in his situation, before it is too late?
In Mr. Nada’s case, a man with perfect references, against whom no charge was found, to continue to apply the sanctions against him is simply to obey the diktat of the United States and to accept the reign of arbitrariness and lawlessness.
Any Swiss citizen committed to the history and the ethical and humanitarian values that his or her country claims to defend, expects from Switzerland, as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, that it refuses to apply, under the pretext of combating terrorism, sanctions which are contrary to the fundamental principles of the rule of law.
There may be gaps in my argument; I am not a lawyer. I have tried in any case to convey as honestly as possible what I believe is just. I thank you for bringing to this case the attention and seriousness that it deserves.
Please accept, Madam Minister, the assurances of my highest consideration.
23rd July 2008
To the “Federal Councillors”.
To the members of the “Commission of external policy of the Council of States” (CPE-CE)
To the members of the “Commission of external policy of the National Council” (CPE-CN)
Original in French:
An abridged version of this open letter was published (in French) on this site on 24 July 2008.
See also “Youssef Nada’s official site”.
 Judgment of the Federal Supreme Court of 14th November 2007 (Case No. 1A.45/2007/daa). The full text of this judgment, in German, can be found through the following link :
http://www.bger.ch/fr/index/juridiction/jurisdiction-inherit-template/jurisdiction-recht/jurisdiction-recht-urteile2000.htm (introduce Youssef Nada in the “search” window).
 Some testimonies:
Those of the police and the residents of Campione, where he has been living for 38 years ;
That of the first Swiss Federal Prosecutor, Mrs. Carla Del Ponte, who investigated Mr. Nada after the first coordinated media attack against him in 1997.
That of the Swiss Federal Police who investigated his case for four and half years ( several reports);
That of The Central Bank Of The Bahamas, which issued the licence and controlled the activity of Mr. Nada’s bank Al Taqwa;
That of the Paribas Bank in Lugano with whom he has dealt since 1974;
That of the Italian political think tank “Pio Manzu Gio”, affiliated with the UN of which Mr. Nada was a member of the programming committee and from which he was awarded the Medal of the Italian Government.
(We thank Mr. Youssef Nada for his help in finding sources in this our research, and we have the documents mentioned here at your disposal).
A) The statement of the Campione police commander and of Campione residents, given to Swissinfo the same day that the police raided Mr. Nada’s house, on 7 November 2001: “Una persona educata e gentile”, cosi’ il comandante della polizia comunale dell’enclave italiana descrive il presidente della Nada Management che risiede a Campione da quasi trentanni. “ In tutti questi anni-aggiunge-non abbiamo mai avuto problemi ne’ con lui ne con Himmat. In paese si facevano vedere poco piu’che altro si notava quando passavano in automobili di lusso Bentley o Rolls Royce. Cortesi, ma riservati.”
B) Mrs. Carla Del Ponte’s statement, the then Federal Prosecutor who investigated Mr. Nada after the coordinated media attack against him in 1997. She declared, on 2nd June 2006, to the Corriere del Ticino: “In cinque, sei mesi di pre-indagine non abbiamo trovato il benche minimo indizio di colpevolezza. Le diro di plu: proprio per non lasciare niente di intentato, gia che avevamo fatto 30 decisi di fare 31 e di interrogare il signor Nada. Sta di fatto che ho convocato il signor Nada a Berna e, in presenza del suo avvocato, ho proceduto a un lungo interrogatorio. Una giornata intera. Alla fine ho devuto ammettere che il signor Nada e la sua Al-Taqwa, col terrorismo, non céntravano proprio niente. Niente di niente. Abbiamo chiuso il caso.”
C) The statement given by the Swiss Federal Police: “Obschon diese Firmen durch Pressemitteilungen – vor allem basierend auf Informationen aus Nachrichtendienstquellen – hinsichtlich mutmasslicher Verbindungen zu Terrororganisationen zum Teil stark belasted wurden, konnten keine konkreten Verdachtsmomente von angefragten Nachrichtendiensten und Polizeistellen kleiner und grosser Nationen erhoben werden.”
D) The Governor of the Central Bank Of The Bahamas wrote to Mr. Nada on 16/02/2001: “I wish to confirm that the Central Bank of the Bahamas, in keeping with the excellent cooperation always enjoyed with your institution, will…”.
E) The Paribas Bank in Lugano wrote on 24.08.1987 about Mr. Nada:
“Trustworthy and competent. Well experienced in banking procedures, techniques and rules due to the large amount of business he does. Since 1974 we have maintained a very satisfactory business relation with him. We have extended to him credit of millions of Swiss francs credit which he has scarcely used due to the fact that he has a strong and stable financial position.”
F) The statement of Pio Manzu (the Italian think tank, affiliated to the UN and concerned with geopolitics and social issues, which Mr. Nada was a member of the programming committee.):
“Youssef Mustafa Nada Tra I maggiori talenti manageriali del mondo Imprenditoriale e finanziario di origine araba Youssef Nada ha costruita in tutto II mondo autorevoli presidi per lo sviluppo degli scambi commerciali tra l’Occidente ed i Paesi lslamici, in Africa e nel Media Oriente. Presidente della Banca AI Taqwa e Direttore dell’omonima organizzazione "The Management" can sede in Lugano Presidente del “Gruppo Nada International”, ha maturato eccezionale esperienza bancaria come pure counter-trade di commercio estero. Grazie ai suoi contatti di lavoro e persona ben nota nel man do finanziario, economico e politico non solo in Europa, ma anche in tutti i Paesi Islamici. Sebbene abbia vissuto la meta dei suoi 60 anni nella stile europeo egli e persona ben nota, rispettata, stimata ed occasionalmente consultata da popularitarian leaders islamici. Le sue attivita rlcoprono ben piu di 25 paesi diversi. Ha all’attivo la stipulazione di contrattl commerciali di elevatissimo valore e significato sociale scaturiti da una vasta conoscenza di meccanismi di mercato e da una non comune padronanza delle norme di transazlone.”
 Mr. Galheb Himmat, Mr. Nada’s business partner, a distinguished and charming man, who finds himself in the same situation. He lives 300 meters from Mr. Nada’s house; his history has been less publicised, but he is also living the ordeal.
 “UN Security Council black lists - Introductory memorandum” , by Dick Marty, Rapporteur, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, 19 March 2007. (cf. title IV, paragraph 13, indentation 2).
 Mr. Yassin Abdulla Kadi is businessman residing in Saudi Arabia. His name was added to the list of persons suspected of supporting terrorism in October 2001. All his assets in the European Community were frozen.
 The European Court, in the cases No T.228/02 dated 12.12.2006 and No T-327/03 dated 11.7.2007 ruled the suppression of the restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with view of combating terrorism in as far as it concerned the applicant.
Since then, the European Community’s Court of Justice followed Mr. Maduro’s opinion. Since its judgement of 3 September 2008, it has cancelled the Court of First Instance’s decision and ruled in Mr. Kadi’s favour by cancelling the regulation he was contesting. See: “Judgment ”, 3 September 2008.
 See note 9.
 On 28 September 2006, RCMP Canadian Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli issued a carefully worded public apology to Mr. Arar and his family during the House of Commons committee on public safety and national security: “Mr. Arar, I wish to take this opportunity to express publicly to you and to your wife and to your children how truly sorry I am for whatever part the actions of the RCMP may have contributed to the terrible injustices that you experienced and the pain that you and your family endured.”
Canadian government apology and settlement:
On 26 January 2007, after months of negotiations between the Canadian government and Arar’s Canadian legal counsel, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology to Arar on behalf of the Canadian government and announced that Arar would receive $10.5 million settlement for his ordeal and an additional $1 million for legal costs.
On 26 January 2007, Mr. Harper released a copy of the letter he had sent to Mr. Arar, apologizing “for any role Canadian officials may have played in what happened to Mr. Arar, Monia Mazigh and their family in 2002 and 2003.”
See Mr. Maher Arar’s website: