As I wrote above, in more detail, what Chretien ACTUALLY did, was suggest to the Pakistani PM that Ahmed Khadr should either face charges, and have a fair trial, or, if the Pakistanis didn't have enough evidence to charge him, then they should release him.

Civilized countries don't, normally, hold people on mere suspicion.

If the Pakistanis then released Khadr, that's on them, not Chretien.

It is on them, if they could have assembled enough evidence to convict him, via a fair trial, and couldn't be bothered because they relied on torture instead.

It is on them, if they actually had evidence against Khadr, and released him anyway, because they thought convicting him via a fair trial would mess up the trade deal they were negotiating with Chretien.

It is on them if they seized him, and held him, without any real evidence.

Ahmed Khadr went and hid, when the Americans invaded.  What if he only did this because he had already experienced a year of torture, in 1995?