MORNING

11 March 2011

The Human Rights Council this morning held a panel discussion on the issue of human rights in the context of action taken to address terrorist hostage taking.

Kyung-wha Kang, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the panel discussion on the issue of human rights related to terrorist hostage taking, said that although the international framework did not provide for a comprehensive definition of terrorism, the elements that could be used to define those actions were contained in several international instruments. She noted that hostage taking could constitute an act of terrorism if pursued with the intention and purpose to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, to intimidate the population or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from any act. Ms. Kang stressed that terrorism could not be defeated by military force, intelligence operations or law enforcement measures alone but required the development of viable alternatives to those susceptible to terrorist recruitment and urged States to consider the protection of the rights of victims of hostage taking in the context of terrorism.

The panelists were Martin Scheinin, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; Kamel Rezzag Bara, Adviser to the President of Algeria; Commissioner Cecilia R.V. Quisumbing, National Human Rights Commission, Philippines; Federico Andreu, Colombian Commission of Jurists; and Soumeylou Maiga, President of the Sahel Observatory of Geostrategy and Security, Maii.
Mr. Scheinin said that hostage taking was an atrocious form of terrorism which reduced victims to a mere means and was morally inexcusable, irrespective of the aims that the perpetrators said they were pursuing. Hostage taking as a form of terrorism was subject to a separate treaty ratified by 168 States, the 1979 Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. Though the definition in the treaty was not the most perfect one, there was no ideal match between it and the idea of hostage taking as a form of terrorism. Mr. Scheinin stressed that hostage taking violated several human rights, including the rights to human dignity, to personal autonomy, to personal liberty, to the right to life and the prohibition against torture or any other form of inhuman treatment. The rights of victims should guide State policies and practices in respect to hostage taking. Finally, a human rights approach to hostage talking should also focus on the prevention of future hostage taking and therefore on the causes of terrorism.

Mr. Bara said that in the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Guinea and the Western Sahara, the economy of terrorism based on hostage taking by terrorist groups and the payment of ransoms for hostages jeopardized the enjoyment of basic human rights. The sudden and brutal nature of terrorist acts and their trans-national mode of operation and the terrible consequences left on society made it a devastating sort of violence which posed a new threat to human rights. It was therefore imperative that the international community cooperate in combating terrorism. Mr. Bara said that in the African Sahel, kidnappings resulted in the earning of
$ 150 million by Al Qaeda terrorist groups, whose strategy was based on kidnapping foreign civilians, and holding the hostages in trying conditions of detention and under constant threat of execution if the Government did not pay ransom or accede to political demands. Due to the profitability of these actions, sub-contracting of hostage taking had occurred and vast zones in the African Sahel were abandoned by tourists and non-governmental organizations because of this threat.

Ms. Quisumbing said that as early as 2006, at the very first session of the Human Rights Council, it had adopted a resolution that had placed the issue of hostage taking in its agenda and programme of work. Despite this early attention to the problem, the trend was still increasing and the question was what was possible to do about this problem while protecting the human rights of victims, the population and the accused. Hostage taking in the context of terrorism was much more complicated than in other contexts, since States in principle refused to negotiate with terrorists. Concerning the racial and religious elements to terrorism and hostage taking, Ms. Quisumbing said that there were some victims that were seen as juicer and sexier and they usually were from developed countries, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross workers taken hostage in Mindanao. Turning to capacity building, Ms. Quisumbing urged countries to include human rights training in their capacity building programmes for combating terrorism.

Mr. Maiga focused on the social and economic consequences for the Sahel community of hostage taking and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights. The payment of ransom created major financial resources for Al Qaida and increased their influence in the region. Public authorities had retreated from the Sahel allowing Al Qaida to become the main employer and holder of resources. A progressive destruction of the economic fabric had occurred with the emergence of new rich communities whose resources were generated by illegal activities. Mr. Maiga said that the criminal nature of hostage-taking and the financing of terrorism through the payment of ransom increased the capacity of terrorist groups and he urged that more needed to be done to combat these activities.

Mr. Andreu said that the taking of hostages was a crime under international law in times of peace and war and that the systematic practice of hostage taking could be termed as a crime against humanity. There was no emergency situation or situation of internal armed conflict that could justify this practice. Mr. Andreu said that an essential issue should be the rights of victims and ensuring the victims safety in rescue attempts. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Special Rapporteurs in this Council had often recalled that in combating barbarity States must respect basic legal and ethical principles of mankind so that they would not be on the same level as those that committed these crimes. Though compliance with such international commitments on combating terrorism with respect to international law and treaty standards were legally binding, all too often the main focus remained on the obligation of States in regard to the captors, whether terrorist groups or otherwise and little progress was made on how to preserve the rights of victims and family members.

During the interactive dialogue speakers said that hostage taking was a crime that deserved condemnation by the international community. The alarming dimensions of terrorism in the world today and their links to organised crime represented a threat to international security and carried with it a responsibility of countries to work together to prevent and combat it. Many speakers noted that the fight against terrorism and the respect and protection of human rights were not mutually exclusive and said that international solidarity should go beyond the security aspects of the matter and focus on the juxtaposition between security, human rights and development. Combating terrorism would be fruitful only if a judicial approach was implemented, a speaker said. There was a need to increase international cooperation in order to draft appropriate legislation and texts and to ratify the Convention and United Nations amendments.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue on the panel discussion on the issue of human rights related to terrorist hostage taking were France, Iraq on behalf of the Arab Group, Algeria, Russian Federation, China, Burkina Faso, Iran, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Morocco, Columbia, United States, United Kingdom, Spain and Syria.
The next meeting of the Council will be at 3 p.m. this afternoon when it will conclude its general debate on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, and then it will hold a closed meeting to take up its complaints procedure under its agenda item on human rights bodies and mechanisms.
Opening Statements

ARCANJO MARIA DO NASCIMIENTO, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, said that this panel discussion would focus on the issue of human rights in the context of action taken to address terrorist hostage taking. This morning’s discussion would examine the primary responsibility of States to promote and protect human rights for all in their jurisdiction, and the strengthening of international cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism while protecting the rights of all victims of terrorism involved.

KYUNG-WA KANG, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the panel discussion on the issue of human rights related to terrorist hostage taking, said that hostage taking was a crime and should be dealt with as such. The international framework did not provide for a comprehensive definition of terrorism, but the elements that could be used to define those actions were contained in several international instruments, including the 2004 High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and the Geneva Conventions. Hostage taking might constitute an act of terrorism if pursued with the intention and purpose to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, to intimidate a population or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. States could not effectively combat hostage taking by solely responding to terrorist acts that had already occurred. Terrorism would not be defeated by military force or intelligence operations of law enforcement measures alone. In order to offer the viable alternative to those susceptible to terrorist recruitment, there was a need to address conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism like the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, good governance and other. To achieve tangible and sustainable results, it was paramount to involve civil society and to cooperate with mandated institutions while respecting the rule of law and international human rights standards. States must ensure that regulatory frameworks were in place to ensure compliance with international human rights standards in intelligence cooperation.

The protection of rights of victims of hostage taking in the context of terrorism required a tailored response, said Ms. Kang. The point of departure for designing schemes and mechanisms of support to victims should be the fundamental principles and rights as enshrined in international human rights standards and instruments which stressed that victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. In order to ensure effective remedy for victims, equal and effective access to justice and appropriate assistance throughout ensuing legal process was required. There should be a possibility for victims to participate in judicial proceedings and other mechanisms aimed at establishing accountability of the perpetrators and to have their views and concerns presented. Concentrated efforts had to be made with the view to recovery and social reintegration of the victims so as to enable them to rebuild their lives. In conclusion, the Deputy High Commissioner expressed the hope that this panel would contribute to shed some light on the issues involved when considering the human rights aspects of terrorist hostage taking and would provide an opportunity for a fruitful exchange of views and ideas on policy action to strengthen the capacity of States to respond to the challenges, in full compliance with their human rights obligations.

Statements by Panellists

MARTIN SCHEININ, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, said that hostage-taking was an atrocious form of terrorism which reduced the victim into a mere means, in breach of the categorical imperative as formulated by philosopher Immanuel Kant. Hence, hostage-taking was by definition morally inexcusable, irrespective of the aims the perpetrators said they were pursuing. Hostage-taking as a form of terrorism was subject to a separate treaty ratified by 168 States, the 1979 Convention against the Taking of Hostages. Many definitions of terrorism, even the narrowest ones, mentioned separately hostage taking as a form of terrorism. The 1979 Convention against the Taking of Hostages included, in its Article 1, a definition of hostage taking for the purpose of the Convention. This definition may not be the most perfect one, and there was no perfect match between it and the idea of hostage taking as a form of terrorism. Mr. Scheinin presented some observations on the human rights dimensions of hostage taking. Hostage taking , due to reducing the victim to a mere means, was an antithesis of several human rights: the rights to human dignity, to personal autonomy, and to personal liberty, and very often also the right to life and the prohibition against torture or any other form of inhuman treatment. A human rights approach to hostage taking recognized that the perpetrator of this atrocious crime was a human being and hence entitled to human rights. Rightly, Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention against Hostage Taking guaranteed the “fair treatment” of the suspect. But even more importantly, a human rights approach to hostage taking also focused on the human rights of the hostages, and of their families. Their rights, including the right to life of the hostages, had to guide State policies and practices in respect to hostage taking. This may require considerable allocation of resources in hostage taking situations in order to pursue a consistent and tireless effort of securing the safe release of the hostage through outmaneuvering and over-tiring the hostage takers.

Finally, a human rights approach to hostage taking also focused on the prevention of future hostage taking and therefore on “causes” of terrorism. The General Assembly’s 2006 Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy was in this respect a quantum leap forward, as it had identified human rights violations amongst the conditions conducive to the spread to terrorism. Securing full enjoyment of all human rights to everyone was a cornerstone in any sustainable strategy for building a society without terrorism. The 1979 Convention against the Taking of Hostages clearly included hostage taking for the purpose of demanding ransom in its Article 1 definition of hostage taking, as one form of compelling someone to perform “any act”, and in the qualification in the Preamble of such hostage takings as manifestations of terrorism. But the Convention did not address the question of whether States or other actors were under a prohibition against paying ransom. However, international instruments against the financing of terrorism could be understood to prohibit the payment of ransom, either in specific cases or even more broadly. The 1999 Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, in its Article2, prohibited the financing of terrorism, and the provision or collection of funds in the knowledge that they were to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out acts of terrorism, this including the taking of hostages as defined in the 1979 Convention.

KAMEL REZZAG BARA, Adviser to the President of Algeria, said that in most regions throughout the world and in particular in the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Guinea and the Western Sahara, the economy of terrorism based on hostage taking by terrorist groups and the payment of ransoms for hostages jeopardized the enjoyment of basic human rights. Terrorist violence was a major challenge that required international cooperation and despite an absence of a definition of the phenomena, terrorism was considered not only a violation of human rights but an absolute negation of those rights; abduction and hostage taking were one of the worst aspects of this terrorism. Terrorism was sudden, brutal, with a trans-national mode of operation and the terrible consequences it left on society made it a devastating sort of violence which posed a new threat to human rights. It was therefore imperative that the international community cooperate in combating terrorism. International solidarity and principles of human rights were sorely tested since the emergence of the economy of terrorism based on hostage taking by terrorist groups and the payment of ransoms. It was a serious crime and Mr. Bara said that those States that met the demands of terrorists flouted human rights. In the African Sahel, kidnappings resulted in the earning of $ 150 million by Al Qaeda terrorist groups, whose strategy was based on kidnapping foreign civilians and holding the hostages in trying conditions of detention and under constant threat of execution if the Government would not pay ransom or accede to political demands. Due to the profitability of these actions, sub-contracting had occurred and vast zones in the African Sahel were abandoned by tourists and the non-governmental organizations that had worked with local populations on development projects were persuaded to leave because of the risk of hostage taking. Mr. Bara called on the Human Rights Council to establish true policies and clear legislation; proposed an additional protocol to the Convention on Hostage Taking; urged that an in-depth study be conducted by the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council to describe the strategy of terrorist groups; and would like the victims of hostage taking to be granted the rights of victims of acts of terrorism.

CECILIA QUISUMBING, Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of the Philippines, said that the issue the panel was discussing was a serious one. As early as 2006, at the very first session of the Human Rights Council, it had adopted a resolution that had placed the issue of hostage taking in its agenda and programme of work. The trend was still increasing and the question was what was possible to do about this problem while protecting the human rights of victims, populations and the accused. Hostage taking in the context of terrorism was much more complicated than in other contexts, since Sates in principle refused to negotiate with terrorists. The question of individual lives and rights became almost seen as something that should or should not be protected in the context of larger national and international security. It was possible to find solutions to crimes and security threats that were compatible with international human rights standards; the question was how. The main challenge was how together, under different mandates, it was possible to protect human rights while combating terrorism. Concerning racial and religious elements to terrorism and hostage taking, Ms. Quisumbing said that there were some victims that were seen as juicer and sexier and they usually come from developed countries, such as International Committee of the Red Cross workers taken hostage in Mindanao. Also, in combating terrorism, some agencies did include racial elements. What could countries do to ensure that people from different religions and religious groups were protected? Turning to capacity building, Ms. Quisumbing urged countries to include human rights training in their capacity building programmes in combating terrorism for countries that needed it.

SOUMEYLOU MAIGA, President of the Sahel Observatory of Geostrategy and Security, Mali, focused on the social and economic consequences for the Sahel community of hostage taking and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights. Some 20 westerns had been kidnapped by Al Qaida and then released and the payment of ransom created major financial resources for Al Qaida and gave them predominant influence in the region. The Security Council had expressed concern about the constant hostage taking by Al Qaida which was raising funds. Very substantial financial resources were brought in situations of desperate poverty and large parts of territories became crisis areas. It was possible to see a lucrative management of such territories. Another element was the eviction of the public authorities in the area and Al Qaida becoming the main employer and holder of resources. A lot of fundamental rights were transferred to non State groups. In addition, this phenomenon had caused the progressive destruction of the economic fabric in the area. New rich communities had emerged and there was a privatization of community assets, the funding of which came from resources generated by illegal economies. The public authorities had difficulty in conducting public developments because with the fragmentation of the population they could not raise money. A further element was corruption and the use of laundering of resources generated by unconventional sectors. Hostage taking had become such an important element in the Sahel territories that hostage taking had integrated territories of different countries because hostage takers had started negotiations with the State of origin of the hostage. The criminal nature of hostage taking and the financing of terrorism through the payment of a ransom was seen as increasing the capacity of the terrorist groups and more needed to be done in verifying compliance with the financial task force and increasing the responsibility of the State in guaranteeing access to authorities and securities.

FEDERICO ANDREU, Colombian Commission of Jurists, said that recent statements, including from the International Committee of the Red Cross and Security Council resolutions, showed no doubt that the taking of hostages was a crime under international law in times of peace and war and that the systematic practice of hostage taking could be termed as a crime against humanity. There was no emergency situation or situation of internal armed conflict that could justify this practice. An essential issue was the rights of victims, the hostages. In Latin America, and Colombia in particular, the rights of victims were considered as a crucial point in hostage taking, to ensure the victims’ safety in rescue attempts. However, practice in the Latin America region had showed that often rescue operations were designed to eliminate or neutralize the captors and very rarely had concerned themselves with how to release or rescue the victims or hostages.

The rights of victims of hostage taking were an essential and important debate. The Security Council adopted a resolution that there was an obligation of all States to take all appropriate measures to bring about the release of hostages in conditions of safety and this obligation was reiterated by the Presidency in 2009 which stated that all possible measures should be taken to protect hostages. Other United Nations General Assembly resolutions had urged States parties to respect humanitarian actions in hostage taking and the activities of the International Red Cross. In the InterAmerican Human Rights Commission, the position was always that States should be urged to establish the whereabouts of hostages and to guarantee their safety. This obligation to guarantee that rescue and release operations preserved the physical integrity of hostages was connected to the obligation of States to combat terrorism in full respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. The Organization of InterAmerican States restated this point as well in its general obligation that reminded States that in combating crime, no matter how heinous these crimes were, there were limits imposed on the State’s actions which forbid forced disappearance, torture and summary trials. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Special Rapporteurs in this Council had often recalled that in combating barbarity States must respect basic legal and ethical principles of mankind and if one had not done this then one would be on the same level as those that committed these crimes. Though compliance with such international commitments on combating terrorism with respect to international law and treaty standards and common law standards were legally binding, the main focus remained on the obligation of States in regard to the captors, whether terrorist groups or otherwise and little progress was made in how to preserve the rights of victims and family members. Much focus was given to the right of compensation, effective remedy, justice, truth, and less to the obligations of the State to ensure the physical integrity of victims. International law had not provided a clear answer for it and it depended on whether or not one was in a state of war or not and the law only provided parameters and that was a subject that should be gone into further.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion on the issue of human rights related to terrorist hostage taking, speakers said that hostage taking was a crime that deserved condemnation by the international community. The alarming dimensions of terrorism in the world today, and also their links to organised crime represented a threat to international security and carried with it a responsibility of countries to work together to prevent and combat it. The scope of the problems had led States to develop a whole arsenal for the complex struggle against this phenomenon, on international, regional and national levels. Despite all efforts undertaken by governments, collectively or individually, the problem of hostage taking continued to plague the world today. The phenomenon of hostage taking in some regions of the world was increasing, also due to ransom paid for the victims who were often from developed countries.

Taking hostages for ransom by terrorists served as an increasingly important source of terrorist financing, speakers agreed. The Human Rights Council in one of its resolutions categorically repeated its commitment to strengthen international cooperation to combat and prevent terrorism; payment of ransom harmed this commitment and violated the rights of current and future victims. Another speaker was of the opinion that freeing hostages was a priority for all States, and reparation and remedies for victims and their families were their rights. The fight against terrorism and respect and protection of human rights were not mutually exclusive, speakers noted and said that international solidarity must go beyond security aspects of the matter and focus on juxtaposition between security, human rights and development. That was why countries promoted the central role of the United Nations and the international strategy for combating terrorism adopted in 2010, which combined security approaches with development and the promotion and protection of human rights. Combating terrorism would be fruitful only if a judicial approach was implemented, a speaker said. There was a need to increase international cooperation in order to draft appropriate legislation and texts and to ratify the Convention on Hostage Taking. Also, all initiatives by the international community must move towards national ownership of countries where they were taking place.

During the interactive dialogue countries raised a number of questions in which they requested further information or opinion by panellists, including on reconciling the right to life of victims of terrorist hostage taking and the prohibition of ransom payment; how the lives of expatriate hostages could be saved without encouraging the development of a new form of human trafficking and without allowing a recurrence of terrorist hostage taking in the future; what options Member States had to avoid payment of ransom to terrorists who used kidnapping as a ploy to raise funds or gain other concessions; and the compatibility of States’ offers of acting as an intermediary between terrorist and countries ready to pay ransom, and those States’ obligations to protect human rights and avoid future violations against new victims.

Speaking in the discussion were France, Iraq on behalf of the Arab Group, Algeria, Russian Federation, China, Burkina Faso, Iran, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Morocco, Columbia, United States of America, United Kingdom, Spain and Syria.

Response by Panellists

MARTIN SCHEININ, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom while Countering Terrorism, said that they had a rich discussion and many themes were repeated, and many delegates were looking for an answer to how to promote and protect human rights and secure the lives of hostages. The international community had to seek an answer and Mr. Scheinin referred to some elements of the answer and to the consistency and efforts in the governmental measures to secure the release of hostages. This required compassion in relation to the victims and their families. There were two ways of understanding ransom: the first one was related to the fact that paying ransom was one form of financing terrorism and therefore prohibited, and secondly it was a form of being associated with Al Qaida. Mr. Scheinin took the view that there had to be a due process at the United Nations whatever the position that the international community took on the substantive issue. Concerning the question of payment of ransom, the Special Rapporteur thought that the launching of a new Convention or Protocol on hostage taking would create confusion and might result in a lengthy process of negotiation. The important message was to insist on a human rights approach to hostage taking and on finding ways to solve the problem of hostage taking without paying ransom.

KAMEL REZZAG BARA, Adviser to the President of Algeria, said that the bodies of the United Nations had not yet considered the issue of hostage taking in its entirety. When a terrorist group took hostages its goal was to place the Government in contradiction with its own rules. The more hostages that were taken, the more ransom was earned and this created a kidnapping industry where the marketing of the human being in terms of skin colour, origin, and gross domestic product of their country of origin was developed. Now terrorists had gone beyond asking for ransom by demanding the freeing of other terrorists that had been captured. At some point there should be sufficient coordination to show terrorist groups that there was international consensus. The 1979 Convention on Hostage Taking only considered the crime as an individual act and now it should be seen as a strategy by terrorist groups as a main source of financing and the role of States in becoming their accomplices. In the Sahel, there were thousands of kilometers of land and the people living there that were held hostage by terrorist groups. Therefore hostage taking on a global level had led to hostage taking at the regional level and posed a threat to certain societies and regions. There was a need to find other solutions to the problem and Mr. Bara suggested an additional protocol taking account of this new approach to hostage taking and an in-depth study by the Human Rights Council to consider the human rights implications.

CECILIA QUISUMBING, Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of the Philippines, said that there were geopolitics to hostage taking and counterterrorism. Governments were supposed to protect their nationals and anyone in their territories. That was why consulates went into high gear whenever a hostage was taken. This rush was not the best context to contemplate the best option that would take into account the protection of the rights; there would be a pressure to take shortcuts, pay ransom, do anything to free hostages. Maybe the countries of origin of hostages should think about the impact of their actions on the host country; those situations should be turned into capacity building opportunities. The role of national human rights institutions should not be forgotten in those situations, Ms. Quisumbing said, but emphasized that the primary responsibility of States should not be abdicated. In the case of the Philippines, the Government had an agreement with the National Democratic Front, a comprehensive agreement on the respect of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, thus building a tool to promote and protect human rights without actually officially recognising the group. There were a number of legal frameworks in place already, and instead of negotiating a new Protocol, the time might be better spent on coordination between them for better, more accountable and more transparent counterterrorism measures that included human rights.

SOUMEYLOU MAIGA, President of the Sahel Observatory of Geostrategy and Security Mali, said that in the Sahel region the group involved in hostage taking and ransom payment was a terrorist group in the very sense of the word. One of the issues was if payment of ransom guaranteed the protection of the hostage. The on-going payment of ransom had increased the ability of these terrorist groups to keep even more hostages. Mr. Maiga believed. It was important to increase a judicial approach to ransom payment and the international community needed to better detect the origins and the use of the actual investments of these resources which allowed these groups to hold entire areas. Another element was related to the fact that, because of the hostage taking and payment of ransom, a lot of resources were injected in extremely poverty areas and all the populations became victims of this process. States had the primary responsibility to ensure security to those who came to their territories. International cooperation was essential in dealing with this problem because often these States were weak and fragile and were not able to ensure security and protection in their territories.

FEDERICO ANDREU, Colombian Commission of Jurists, said that he would like to note that the problem should be viewed more comprehensively, as taking hostages was not limited to just paying economic ransom. Payments encouraged more hostage taking but not every payment ensured the release of hostages, for example in Colombia in many cases with payments paid, hostages were killed. States had obligations under international law to guarantee the safety of hostages. This was vital. One of the fundamental problems was to see what the subsequent action by the State was after the release, dead or alive of the hostages, or if someone was a hostage for 20 years, what had the Government done? The State should reject any amnesty negotiation when dealing with the criminal act of hostage taking. There were few criminal trials. The most dissuasive element would be to ensure international cooperation when captors moved over borders to escape justice. Humanitarian organizations could help with the release of hostages by coming up with solutions and in Colombia this type of humanitarian mediation was considered illegal and this should change. The General Assembly recalled that States had to respect humanitarian activities and those of the Red Cross in hostage taking. They could prohibit a State to pay ransom directly but the practice was quite different, was often done through a third, forth, or fifth party, with no direct payment and this would not resolve the problem. Mr. Andreu agreed with the Special Rapporteur that rather than a problem of standards in international instruments, when law enforcement bodies operated in real time they should look at intelligence that could prevent things in time with punishment to occur later.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record