Human Rights Council
MIDDAY

30 June 2015 

The Human Rights Council in its midday meeting today held a panel discussion on the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment by all persons of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In her opening remarks, Flavia Pansieri, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, stressed the need to acknowledge the human rights of victims of terrorism, and recognize their rights to reparation, truth and justice.  The primary responsibility for accountability fell on States, which had to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of violations.  The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the General Assembly, obliged all Member States to adopt a holistic, integrated approach to addressing terrorism effectively, with human rights and the rule of law as its fundamental basis.  Broadly formulated counter-terrorism legislation, which failed to comply with the principle of legality and violations of the rights to due process and fair trial in relation to counter-terrorism, continued to be a concern. 

Panellists were Ben Emmerson, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; Steven Siqueira, Deputy Director, Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office and United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre; and Mauro Miedico, Chief of Section, Terrorism Prevention Branch, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Mr. Emmerson explained that the core of his mandate was to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights while countering terrorism and, stressing the absence of a single agreement on the rights of the victims of terrorism, he proposed a series of framework principles to that end, which focused on effective investigation, due process and reparations.  All States should formally recognize that human rights violations in the terrorism context could be committed by State and non-State actors alike.  There were currently eight million people living in the territories under the control of ISIL which committed terrible crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity: the evidence of summary mass executions of religious minorities, mass disappearances, systematic torture and mutilations, gender based violence and rape was clear.  It was the time for the Human Rights Council to recognize the severity of the situation.

Mr. Siqueira emphasized that the responses by the international community had to remain grounded within the four pillars of the Global Counter Terrorism Strategy and that the protection of citizens was paramount.  National, regional and international efforts to counter terrorism through military or other means had sometimes been disproportionate, resulting in human rights abuses and lack of protection of civilians, effectively providing terrorist groups with fuel to power more hatred.  Later this year, the Secretary-General would launch an Action Plan on Preventing Violent Extremism with concrete proposals on the approach of the United Nations to the issue.  Victims of terrorism deserved to be at the centre of efforts by the international community.  The Victims Support web portal was a practical tool to assist victims with resources and information that facilitated assistance and support to them from Member States and civil society actors.  

Mr. Miedico stressed that it was unquestionable that terrorism threatened the core values of the United Nations and represented an assault on the rule of law, human rights, and on international peace and security.  The traditional security-oriented approaches were insufficient to address the threat of terrorism effectively, particularly in the medium- and long-term.  It was essential for States to establish lawful investigative and evidentiary mechanisms to facilitate prosecutorial intervention before tragedies occurred, while respecting the procedural protections, and to develop ways to limit terrorist use of the Internet.  The right to security and the security of rights needed to be seen as fully complementary with each other; there was no security of rights if the right to security of person was not properly recognized.  

In the ensuing discussion, speakers condemned all forms of terrorism and expressed deep alarm over its dangerous mutations and the threat terrorism posed to all States and regions.  There was only one rational response to terrorism: reinforcing the respect for human rights, and fighting hate speech, discrimination, suppression, injustice and marginalization.  An effective approach to counter-terrorism required action on multiple fronts, including tackling root causes, preventing violent extremism, and promoting a counter narrative, while strengthening legal and security measures.  A speaker highlighted the need for comprehensive studies and analyses of the origins and motives of terrorist groups, and the identification of their sources of funding, which needed to be curbed. 

Respect for human rights while countering terrorism was imperative; limitations to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly needed to be proportionate and serve a legitimate goal, under strict oversight.  Several delegations raised concern that countries around the world frequently used counter-terrorism measures to restrict rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, target human rights defenders, and unfairly try critics of the government.  The Human Rights Council had a role in ensuring that the fight against terrorism was carried out with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.   

Saudi Arabia on behalf of a group of States, Egypt on behalf of a group of States, Switzerland on behalf of a group of 32 States, Algeria on behalf of the African Group, European Union, Hungary on behalf of a group of 32 States, Ecuador on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Denmark on behalf of the Nordic Countries, Albania on behalf of a group of States, Pakistan, United States, Cuba, China, Egypt, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Syria, Austria, Belgium Iran, Kuwait, Hungary, Jordan, Estonia, Morocco, Netherlands, Holy See, India, Niger, Viet Nam, Council of Europe, Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, Ireland, and Bahrain took part in the discussion.

Also speaking were the Human Rights Council of Morocco, and the non-governmental organizations: Human Rights Watch (joint statement), Al-Salam Foundation, CIVICUS, Friends World Committee for Consultation (joint statement), Organization for Defending Victims of Torture, Arab Commission for Human Rights, and Amuta for NGO Responsibility.

The Council is holding a full day of meetings today.  At 3 p.m., it will hold an interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Central African Republic, Marie-Thérèse Keita Bocoum, followed by an interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on human rights in Côte d’Ivoire, Mohammed Ayat.

Opening Statement

FLAVIA PANSIERI, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that terrorism destabilized governments, undermined societies, jeopardized peace and security, and threatened economic and social developments, with serious implications for the enjoyment of human rights by all.  The human rights of victims of terrorism needed to be acknowledged and their loss and dignity recognised, as well as their rights to reparation, truth and justice.  Terrorism tended to thrive in situations of ongoing or prolonged armed conflict, chronic instability and systemic human rights violations, which included discrimination, exclusion of participation in political life and socio-economic marginalization.  Those problems were compounded by a lack of accountability and access to justice for victims of human rights violations and abuses.  The primary responsibility for accountability fell on States, which had to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of violations. 

Through the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the General Assembly, all Member States agreed to a holistic, integrated approach to addressing terrorism effectively, with human rights and the rule of law as its fundamental basis.  Some States had enacted broadly formulated counter-terrorism legislation which failed to comply with the principle of legality as it did not contain sufficiently precise definitions of terrorist acts.  Violations of the rights to due process and fair trial in relation to counter-terrorism continued to be a concern.  In some States, counter-terrorism laws had been misused to curb otherwise legitimate activities and target journalists and human rights defenders.  Ms. Pansieri emphasized that protecting human rights and ensuring respect for the rule of law contributed to countering terrorism by creating a climate of trust between the State and those under its jurisdiction, and by supporting the resilience of communities to threats of violent radicalism.

Statements by the Panellists

BEN EMMERSON, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, explained that the core of his mandate was to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights while countering terrorism.  At the beginning of his mandate in 2011 he made it clear that he would ensure that victims of terrorism would receive due attention.  There was still no single agreement that focused on the rights of the victims of terrorism.  Mr. Emmerson proposed a series of framework principles to that end, focusing on effective investigation, due process and reparations.  All States should formally recognize that human rights violations in the terrorism context could be committed by State and non-State actors alike.  There were still highly influential civil society organizations and States that steadfastly refused the notion that terrorist acts could amount to human rights violations.  From the victims’ perspective that stance was nonsensical.  To deny that victims of terrorism experienced human rights violations would render them prisoners of doctrine. 

He noted that there were currently 8 million people living in the territories under the control of ISIL, and they faced terrible crimes committed by that group.  It committed genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law.  The United Nations Mission in Iraq and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights  had found clear evidence of summary mass executions of religious minorities, mass disappearances, systematic torture and mutilation, gender based violence, and rape.  Children were also subjected to killings and rape.  Those constituted grave human rights violations and it was time for the Human Rights Council to recognize the severity of the situation.

STEVEN SIQUEIRA, Deputy Director, Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office and United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre, said responses by the international community had to remain grounded within the four pillars of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which highlighted that security and human rights were complementary and mutually reinforcing.  Terrorist groups were tearing apart the social fabric of countries and shaking the very pillars of the United Nations.  Human rights abuses were being carried out on an unprecedented scale, creating flows of refugees and internally displaced not seen since the end of World War II.  The protection of citizens was paramount.  National, regional and international efforts to counter terrorism through military or other means had sometimes been disproportionate, resulting in human rights abuses and a lack of protection of civilians, effectively providing terrorist groups fuel to power more hatred.  The Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force member entities would continue to support efforts that strengthened Member States’ response to terrorism, based on respect for international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law. 
                               
The Working Group on Human Rights and the Rule of Law sought to train and build the capacity of national law enforcement officials on human rights in the course of preventing terrorism.  With regard to prevention, the Secretary-General would launch an Action Plan on Preventing Violent Extremism later this year, with concrete proposals on how the United Nations could approach this issue.  The international community could not afford to see counter-terrorism measures have a chilling-effect on civil society and the media, or on freedom of association, speech and assembly.  Earlier this month, the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre held a panel on how to address online radicalization without impacting basic rights and freedoms, which showed the importance of engaging with the private sector.  Victims of terrorism also deserved to be at the centre of efforts by the international community.  The Victims Support web portal was a practical tool to assist victims with resources and information that facilitated assistance and support to them from Member States and civil society actors.  

MAURO MIEDICO, Chief of Section, Terrorism Prevention Branch, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, stressed that it was unquestionable that terrorism threatened the core values of the United Nations and represented an assault on the rule of law, human rights, and international peace and security.  It was important to recognize that the right to security of person was a fundamental right enshrined in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  If they wanted to defend people’s rights, the first thing that needed to be done was to protect their right to live and not to die.  The new comprehensive, integrated and universal Sustainable Development Goals post-2015 provided an important framework for a United Nations effort in promoting the nexus between security and development.  The role of technical assistance and capacity building in preventing and countering terrorism became crucial.  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s Terrorism Prevention Branch was a key provider of counter-terrorism legal technical assistance.  More needed to be done to protect, as the traditional security-oriented approaches were insufficient to address the threat of terrorism effectively, particularly in the medium- and long-term.  A preventive approach demanded from Member States that lawful investigative and evidentiary mechanisms be established to facilitate prosecutorial intervention before tragedies occurred, while respecting procedural protections. 

It was also essential to develop ways to limit terrorist use of the Internet, but there were many difficulties in that regard, including that criminalizing such abuse of the Internet by terrorists could also touch on issues of freedom of expression.  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime had developed successful specialized training programmes, based on its publication “Countering the Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes”.  The capacity of States to ensure rule of law based responses to terrorism was of essential importance.  Both the right to security and the security of rights needed to be seen as fully complementary with each other, and there was no security of rights if the right to security of person was not properly recognized.  

Discussion

Saudi Arabia, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said that there was a need to support local efforts to address terrorist acts.  It underlined the importance of preventing the spread of extremist ideas and tackling the root causes of terrorism, including through restricting access to social media as necessary.  Egypt, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said terrorism was not targeted at or limited to one religion or one group, adding that terrorism had destabilized States in the Middle East.  International cooperation against the root causes of terrorism was important.  Switzerland, speaking on behalf of a group of 32 States, said States must comply fully with human rights while countering terrorism, including the right to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly.  Limitations to these rights needed to be proportionate and serve a legitimate goal, under strict oversight.  Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, was deeply alarmed that terrorism had undergone dangerous mutations over the years, and the growing threat it represented for States and international peace and security.
     
European Union stressed that terrorism was criminal and unjustifiable under any circumstances.  The European Union strongly believed that efforts to combat terrorism had at all times to be carried out with full respect for human rights.  What measures or best practices could be recommended in that regard?  Hungary, speaking on behalf of a group of 32 States, stated that States needed to ensure that their counter-terrorism measures ought to be in line with international conventions and norms.  States should investigate and report on atrocities and other human rights abuses, protect their populations and provide fair-trial protections.  Ecuador, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, said that terrorism constituted a threat to world security and one of the largest challenges to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  Any action taken to combat terrorism needed to respect international standards and be guided by the rule of law.  Denmark, speaking on behalf of the Nordic Countries, stated that the scourge of terrorism affected all regions of the world.  There was only one rational response to terrorism: reinforcing the respect for human rights, and to fight hate speech, discrimination, suppression, injustice and marginalization. 

Albania, speaking on behalf of a group of States, asked the panel for their views on preventing violent extremism on regional and sub-regional levels.  Violent extremism should not be related to any religion or civilization.  Governments played a key role in preventing violent extremism.  Pakistan believed that terrorism had no religion or borders, and it had to be tackled as a global phenomenon.  Terrorism could not be effectively countered without addressing its root causes.  Allegations of terrorism should not be used to cover up the denial of the right of self-determination.  United States said that narrowly addressing only the abuses of non-State actors needed to be avoided.  States had to ensure that any measures to counter violent extremism complied with all their obligations under international law.  Cuba saw terrorism as a scourge that directly affected the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  Some 3,478 Cubans had perished as a consequence of terrorist acts.  Cuba reaffirmed its commitment to working within the United Nations framework on combatting terrorism. 

Human Rights Council of Morocco reiterated concern about the lack of a specific definition of several terrorist offences in the draft counter-terrorism legislation and said that Morocco would be guided by the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.   Human Rights Watch, in a joint statement with International Service for Human Rights and international Federation for Human Rights Leagues said that countries around the world frequently used counter-terrorism measures to restrict rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, target human rights defenders, and unfairly try critics of the government.  Al-Salam Foundation was concerned about counter-terrorism legislation in several countries, which allowed prolonged pre-trial detention, arbitrary arrests, and harsh sentences against human rights defenders and government critics.

Response by Panellists

BEN EMMERSON, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said that the question of accountability on both sides of the equation must be kept in mind, and stressed the necessity to ensure accountability of public officials engaged in counter-terrorism activities.  With regard to accountability for violations of rights of victims of terrorism perpetuated by non-State armed groups, the Security Council had declared ISIL as a threat to peace and security, but was very reluctant to authorise military action under the Charter 7 or to refer the situation in Iraq and Syria to the International Criminal Court.  The Security Council had passed a resolution putting ISIL on a list of terrorist organizations; such a resolution was a token gesture which only scratched the surface and would not stop the human rights violations by ISIL on the ground.  Through its institutional paralysis, even in a situation as grave as this, the United Nations Security Council had proven itself unable to discharge its mandate under the United Nations Charter.  The Security Council had an obligation to act, and the time had come to recognize that the permanent members of the Security Council must refrain from using veto power to block action to address crimes.

STEVEN SIGUEIRA, Deputy Director, Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office and United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre, said that training for law enforcement officers in the area of counter-terrorism was continuously taking place.  Training for prosecutors was also regularly conducted.  The danger of corrosion of State legitimacy existed when the State was undertaking counter-terrorism measures.  The foundation of respect for human rights ought to be stressed.  The United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre was working with a wide range of national and regional partners, most recently the African Union.  Such cooperation was especially important regarding the aspects of foreign terrorist fighters and the financing of terrorism.  It was important to provide civil society with a space to operate, which was being looked at.  Ways of engaging civil society more actively were also being looked at.

MAURO MIEDICO, Chief of Section, Terrorism Prevention Branch, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, stated that criminal justice responses needed to be central and based on the rule of law.  Terrorism was a crime and had to be addressed as such.  All panellists had stressed the importance of rule-of-law based responses as a way of avoiding further radicalisation of at-risk communities.  The only way to be effective in preventing terrorism meant looking at the legislative aspects and offences such as incitement to terrorism and recruitment needed to be criminalized. There was possibly a need for more reliance on intelligence information, which would allow for more interventions at an early, preventative stage.  Policy makers needed to be made more aware of the need to ensure responses based on the rule of law.  Sometimes military actions might be inevitable, but they needed to be accompanied by clear rules and regulations.

Discussion

China said it was against linking terrorism with a specific country or religion and said that its draft law against terrorism was guided by the principle of the rule of law.  Egypt said that no country was safe from the threat of terrorism and stressed that fighting terrorism and protecting human rights were complementary.  Namibia expressed concern about the proliferation of discussions and resolutions concerning terrorism in the Human Rights Council, and said that terrorism and combatting of terrorism were political and security issues which should be confined to the General Assembly and the Security Council.  Sierra Leone stressed the need for a comprehensive study and analysis of the origins and motives of terrorist groups, and the identification of their sources of funding, which needed to be curbed.  Syria said that, with the emergence of terrorist organizations in the region, large-scale suffering continued, and this spoke to the lack of will and double standards in the fight against terrorism.  Austria condemned all forms of terrorism and strongly believed that the Council must ensure that the fight against terrorism was carried out with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Belgium believed that ensuring due process and accountability for perpetrators of terrorism was key.  Respect of human rights ought to be cemented in the design of counter-terrorism measures and prevention activities.  Iran noted that the so-called war on terrorism seemed to have been transformed to an ideology of fear and repression that created enemies and promoted violence.  Occupation, violation of basic rights, foreign domination and poverty were among evident roots of violence.  Kuwait said that a terrorist act had struck Kuwait again several days earlier.  Kuwait called for measures to be taken to curb all forms of extremism and the expression of statements containing hatred in the media.  Hungary saw terrorism as a serious challenge to all State structures.  Hungary firmly believed that the strengthening of national institutions accountable to the population and guided by the rule of law represented a good step in preventing terrorism.  Jordan said that no State was spared the threat of terrorism today.  Every person had the right to freedom, integrity and safety, which were all endangered by terrorism.  Any attempt to link terrorism to a particular religion just helped terrorists.  Estonia emphasized that terrorism required a global response, through well-coordinated cooperation between States and international organizations.  The fight against terrorism had to be carried out with full respect for human rights and freedoms. 

CIVICUS noted that anti-terrorist legislation in many countries was not used to prosecute terrorists, but was used as a smokescreen to stifle dissenting voices, such as in Ethiopia, Cameroon, Sudan, China, United Kingdom and Spain.   Friends World Committee for Consultation, in a joint statement with Amnesty International, raised concerns that the death penalty was used for actions defined as terrorism, in particular in situations where its use did not comply with international law.  Organization for Defending Victims of Torture raised the issue of ISIS terrorist attacks and regretted the fact that some States offered safe haven to terrorists and actively supported them, while at the same time they condemned terrorism. 

Morocco supported the implementation of multi-dimensional national strategies for combatting terrorism, including the introduction of relevant human rights education.  Netherlands underscored the paramount importance that all States ensured full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.  Holy See denounced terrorist acts carried out in the name of religion, noting that it had to be confronted with concerted political action.  India noted that terrorism had an adverse effect on the establishment of the rule of law, and that tackling terrorism required a holistic approach and collective action. 

Niger said it was hosting several thousand refugee victims of terrorism, who increased pressure on its health and water supply systems, while attacks by Boko Haram continued to cause internal displacement.  Viet Nam said that the recent events in Tunisia, France and Kuwait were a reminder of the effects of terrorism on the right to life and security of persons and said that all terrorist acts must be punished and justice must prevail.  Council of Europe said that the fight against terrorism should not be reduced to police or military action, adding that it had adopted a Protocol on foreign terrorist fighters and launched the No Hate Parliamentary Alliance to counter hate and racist speech.  Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie said that the fight against terrorism must be global, address all forms and manifestation of terrorism, and use what the Secretary-General termed “weapons of construction” as vectors of peace, such as education, training, awareness raising and development.  Ireland stressed that effective approach to counter-terrorism required action on multiple fronts, including tackling root causes, preventing violent extremism, and promoting a counter narrative, while strengthening legal and security measures.  Bahrain said that extremist violence needed to be fought with honesty and courage.

Arab Commission for Human Rights warned that some countries used counter-terrorism measures as an excuse not to honour their human rights obligations, adding that non-State actors could commit acts of terrorism just as State actors.   Amuta for NGO Responsibility said the failure to address real terrorism and its substance was regrettable, noting that the use of the right to self-defence as an excuse for terrorism was unacceptable. 
 
Concluding Remarks

BEN EMMERSON, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, elaborated on the steps to take to promote the capacity of States to implement international human rights obligations in the context of the fight against terrorism.  All of them had to take place within the framework of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.  It was necessary to address the root causes of terrorism, and not only its manifestations.  The Strategy was underpinned with respect and promotion for human rights.  One of the more challenging aspects of the Strategy was Pillar one, which dealt with the conditions conducive to terrorism.  It was surprising that States had been able to agree on what were the essential conditions conducive to terrorism, such as the breakdown of the rule of law and economic underdevelopment.  Those were propelled to the top of the agenda.  Mr. Emmerson formally proposed to China to provide technical assistance for Chinese draft anti-terrorism legislation.

STEVEN SIQUEIRA, Deputy Director, Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office and United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre, said that the pendulum of the global counter-terrorism strategy was swinging towards countering and preventing violent extremism that led to terrorism.  The United Nations Secretary-General’s Strategy, due in November this year, would support this shift.  The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy was clear on the importance of giving voice to victims of terrorism, particularly in creating counter narrative in the context of counter-terrorism.  States had the primary responsibility to protect their populations from war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide, and the international community also had the responsibility to support States in discharging this responsibility.

MAURO MIEDICO, Chief of Section, Terrorism Prevention Branch, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, said that there was room for strengthened cooperation and the Council might take the lead role in guiding the collection of good practices in a number of areas of interests.  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime had just launched a major initiative to support States in the implementation of the Security Council resolution 2175 on foreign fighters, and the Council could assist in this.  Other areas for cooperation were new areas of intervention, including limiting the use of digital media by terrorist groups, prevention of radicalization in prison settings, or protection of the source in terrorist investigations. 

____________
For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr