5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive aspect, on account of the respondent State's complicity in the CIA High-Value Detainee Programme in that it enabled the US authorities to subject the applicant to inhuman treatment on its territory and to transfer him from its territory in spite of a real risk that he would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3; 6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the convention on account of the applicant's undisclosed detention on the respondent State's territory and the fact that the respondent State enabled the US authorities to transfer him from its territory, in spite of a real risk that he would be subjected to further undisclosed detention; 7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the convention; 8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the convention on account of the lack of effective remedies in respect of the applicant's grievances under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the convention; 9. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the convention on account of the transfer of the applicant from the respondent State's territory in spite of a real risk that he could face a flagrant denial of justice; 10. Holds that there has been a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the convention on account of the transfer of the applicant from the respondent State's territory in spite of a real risk that he could be subjected to the death penalty; 11. Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the convention, EUR 100,000 (one hundred thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; 12. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction. The court therefore found that Mr Al Nashiri had been within Romania's jurisdiction