Statement by Ivan Šimonović, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, at the Counter-Terrorism Committee event to mark the 10-year anniversary of the adoption of Security Council resolution 1624 (2005)

Madam Chair Thank you and to the Counter-Terrorism Committee and its Executive Directorate for the invitation to this commemoration of the ten-year anniversary of Security Council resolution 1624.

 

Why Human Rights, here at this meeting?

Because there is a wide consensus today that to be effective and sustainable, any approach to address violent extremism and terrorism, including incitement, must be firmly grounded in the protection of human rights and respect for the rule of law; any other approach would neither be efficient, nor compliant with States’ international obligations. The 2006 Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy reflects this view and this commemoration is an opportunity to show increasing commitment by Member States.

Let me now turn to the resolution, while resolution 1624 includes welcome safeguards with respect to human rights, implementation of the resolution has raised some concerns. One such concern is the vague and overly broad concept of “incitement”, which some States might potentially interpret as covering otherwise legitimate, non-violent political or other forms of expression. Another concern relates to the criminalization of “glorification” or apologie of terrorism.

Similar issues relate to the absence of a definition of “terrorism” at the international level, leading to abuse by some States by declaring political, ethnic or other movements and groups they do not like as terrorists.

We are also concerned about possible human rights violations regarding the resolution’s request to prevent the subversion of educational, cultural and religious institutions by terrorists and their supporters. This can lead to curtailment or criminalization of the activities of certain religious groups in violation of the right to freedom of religion, freedom of association and other human rights. Repressive responses to all kinds of incitement will not only frequently be in violation of international human rights law but also counter-productive. This would be the case if legitimate forms of expression are blocked, offline and online, for example, or where it marginalizes particular groups if it targets or gives the impression of targeting, particular sections of society.

In this regard, let me quote the SG’s speech delivered during his Central Asian tour at Ashgabat University in June this year: “As we have seen in many regions of the world, the terrorist threat can lead some in power to think that the answer is to curb religious freedoms and place further limits on fundamental rights such as the freedoms of expression, assembly and association. But experience has shown this only backfires. Curbing freedoms may create an illusion of stability in the short-run.  Things may seem calm on the surface.  There may not be protests on the streets.  But the denial of free expression leads to a brewing underneath and ultimately a breeding ground for extremist ideologies. It fosters deep frustration which can lead to even greater challenges. The failure to respect human rights, build accountable institutions, promote political participation, and ensure opportunity for all creates gaps. The wider the gaps, the greater the openings for violent extremists.”

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to stress that there is no need to balance security and human rights. States are allowed under international human rights law to adjust the level of protection to deal with difficult circumstances, however, within clear parameters. Let me briefly speak about these in the context of implementing resolution 1624.

Legitimate restrictions on freedom of expression are built into the ICCPR for example: where provided for by law and necessary, for respect of rights of others or protection of national security. The principles of equality and non-discrimination also need to be respected at all times.

Combating incitement to terrorism on grounds of national security can generally be a legitimate objective but it also needs to be necessary and proportionate.

Legislation needs to be drafted clearly, precisely and be easily accessible. Instead of using vague and broad terms such as glorification, incitement when criminalized should entail a subjective intent to incite and objective danger of the acts incited to be committed.

However, there are no permissible limitations on the right to freedom of opinion. Limiting access to certain information, including by blocking access to websites, social media, may constitute an interference with the right to hold and form an opinion and to seek information. 

To ensure the efficacy of the obligations above, and the proper enforcement of these limitations, it is necessary to have transparency. States need to demonstrate that measures taken fit within these criteria, in a pro-active manner, while independent oversight and scrutiny mechanisms can serve a crucial role in avoiding misuse. Judicial oversight should be available, as the last resort. 

Let me now turn to the inclusion of civil society, relevant local communities and other civil society actors must be further engaged in addressing incitement, including by providing them with an enabling environment. Unfortunately, at the same time, we see a trend towards limitations of the right to freedom of association, not only in the counter-terror context but also more broadly. 

We do need to work with civil society in particular to adopt tailored local and national approaches to countering recruitment to and promoting social inclusion and cohesion. Effective steps to counter incitement require more than legal measures; inter-cultural dialogue and education are certainly part of the solution.

One word of caution however: what we now see labeled as Countering Violent Extremism or Preventing Violent Extremism approaches should not be automatically equated with a human rights approach;, some strategies adopted under a preventative framework do not appear human rights-compliant — such as those that I raised earlier: steps taken to purportedly prevent incitement which unduly restrict the rights to freedom of expression as well as to freedom of opinion.

Ladies and gentlemen let me conclude.

Any responses to violent extremism and terrorism that violate human rights are self-defeating. And as we have seen, human rights provide for a flexible framework within which terrorism can be legally and successfully combated while respecting human rights.

Thank you.