Reaction to European court's terror extraditions ruling
Reactions to the European Court of Human Rights's backing of the extraditions of five terror suspects, including Abu Hamza, from the UK to the US.
Babar Ahmad's father, Ashfaq
Mr Ahmad said there had been a "serious abuse of process" and that he and his family were "very disappointed" by the decision.
"The fundamental question remains as to why this matter has even got to Strasbourg, and why Babar needs to be extradited to the US," he said.
"Babar is a British citizen, accused of a crime said to have been committed in the UK, and all the evidence against him were gathered in this country.
"Nevertheless, the British justice appears to have been sub-contracted to the US.
"I'm not saying Barbar is guilty or not guilty - what I am saying is that he should be taken to the court here and let the court decide. We'll accept whatever they say."
Babar Ahmad's sister, Dr Amna Ahmad
"Well my brother is an innocent man, we've always maintained that. But the issue is that if he's extradited - firstly he faces pre-trial detention conditions of solitary confinement.
"So before he's even been put on trial, he could be stuck in solitary confinement for literally years. I mean, Chris Tappin; he's in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day with the bright lights on. And you know that's absurd."
Prime Minister David Cameron
"I am very pleased with this news. It's quite right that we have a proper legal process, although sometimes you can be frustrated by how long things take.
"I think it's very important that these deportations and extradition arrangements work promptly and properly, particularly when people are accused of very serious crimes."
Home Secretary Theresa May
"I welcome the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to allow the extradition of Abu Hamza and other terror suspects.
"In five of the six cases, the Court found that extradition would not breach their human rights and in the remaining case, it asked for further information before taking a final decision.
"I will work to ensure that the suspects are handed over to the US authorities as quickly as possible."
Mrs May told the BBC News Channel that every UK court had felt it was right for the terror suspects to be extradited.
"Prosecutors look at evidence that is available and make a decision as to whether it is right to prosecute in the UK or not. Those decisions were taken, it was determined that it was not right to prosecute in the UK, and therefore we've been following the extradition route."
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper
Ms Cooper welcomed the ruling.
"It will mean that Abu Hamza can now be extradited to the US, as his prison sentence in Britain comes to an end, to stand trial for alleged serious offences including supporting terror training camps in the United States," she said.
"Proper legal processes are important, but it remains a serious concern that this has taken so long, and it is important that remaining steps should be swiftly resolved.
"However, this judgement only covers cases involving the US. The government now needs to focus on dealing with Abu Qatada, who could have less than a month left of his strict bail conditions, and where the government's own decision to water down counter-terror powers could mean he is allowed to move around London."
Former Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell
Sir Menzies said it would be important to study the detailed judgment.
"This decision will do a great deal to restore the reputation of the court but we must be cautious in drawing unjustified conclusions," he said.
"The detail and reasoning of the judgment has to be carefully examined, but perhaps now we can have a rational debate about the role and significance of the European Convention and its fundamental importance to a democratic society like our own."
Lib Dem peer, Lord Carlile QC
End Quote Lib Dem peer, Lord Carlile QC
These men are accused of very serious offences in the US and... should be tried in the US”
Lord Carlile, the government's former independent reviewer of terror legislation, said it would have been "extraordinary" if the European Court of Human Rights had "discriminated against the American justice system".
"If they have committed crimes that are criminal in the United States, they must have done so with their eyes open knowing that they would be potentially subject to very severe sentences," he said.
"It's also worth bearing in mind that we do have whole life sentences without parole in this country, though happily not too many of them.
"These men are accused of very serious offences in the United States and it's right that they should be tried in the United States.
"Every day of the week there are cases being tried both in London and in New York which have British and American elements to them. And it's perfectly reasonable that they should be tried where the crime was aimed."
Lib Dem European justice and human rights spokeswoman Sarah Ludford
Ms Ludford said the ruling "still leaves open the question of whether the US is the right place to try all of these suspects".
There should be a bar on extradition to either the US or the EU "if the offence took place mainly in the UK", she said.
Conservative MP Dominic Raab
Mr Raab, a member of the parliamentary committee on human rights, said the ruling was "absolutely right".
"To say that we couldn't extradite serious terrorist players to the US because they may get a long sentence in difficult, tough prison conditions would be ludicrous.
"It would be ludicrous as a moral matter, but it would also undermine the whole basis for counter terrorism extradition to the US. Of course in serious cases you face long prison sentences and tough conditions."