A/HRC/13/42* page 139 Country 14. Finland Response • No instances of secret detention or facilities as a means to counter terrorism. Finland has consistently emphasized the need to respect human rights while countering terrorism. • A reference has once been made to the landing of a cargo aircraft on 16 May 2003. Permission had been granted because it had been designated by the US declaration as an aircraft used for the carriage of cargo. • Finnish legislation contains provisions which control acts of foreign agencies, and affords safeguards against unacknowledged deprivation of liberty. • The Sentences Enforcement Decree prohibits detention in a penal institution without a written order, and the identity of the prisoners is always verified; this applies to both Finnish nationals and foreigners. • No person suspected of involvement in terrorism have been placed in Finnish prisons or transported on the order of the Prison Service in Finland; nor is there any information that any official or person acting officially has been involved in the unacknowledged deprivation of liberty or the transport of persons so deprived. • No instances of experiences where secret detentions have been an effective or acceptable measure in countering terrorism. • The Finnish Penal Code provides for definition of terrorist offences and for the right of the Prosecutor General to make decisions in relation to the bringing of charges. • No experiences of secret detention in past domestic, regional or global counter-terrorism context. 15. Germany • No instances of secret detention in the penitentiary system as a means to counter terrorism. • No involvement or collaboration in secret detention on the territory of another State. Respect for human rights is a constitutional mandate. • Germany does not regard secret detention as an effective tool in countering terrorism and emphasizes that terrorism must be dealt with in compliance with democratic principles, rule of