30/64 Panel discussion on the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment by all persons of human rights and fundamental freedoms - Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Council Thirtieth session Agenda items 2 and 3

Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the

High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,

political, economic, social and cultural rights,

including the right to development

Panel discussion on the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment by all persons of human rights and fundamental freedoms*

Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights

Summary

The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 28/17.

It provides a summary of the panel discussion on the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment

by all persons of human rights and fundamental freedoms, held on 30 June 2015, during the

twenty-ninth session of the Council.

* Late submission.

I. Introduction

1. Pursuant to its resolution 28/17 entitled “Effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of

human rights”, the Human Rights Council convened a panel discussion on the effects of

terrorism on the enjoyment by all persons of human rights and fundamental freedoms, on

30 June 2015.1

2. The panel discussion was chaired and moderated by the Vice-President of the

Human Rights Council, Mothusi Bruce Rabasha Palai. The United Nations Deputy High

Commissioner for Human Rights, Flavia Pansieri, delivered the opening address. The

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 the United

Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre; and Mauro Miedico, Chief of the Implementation

Support Section III, Terrorism Prevention Branch, United Nations Office on Drugs and

Crime (UNODC).

3. Also in resolution 28/17, the Human Rights Council requested the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report on the panel discussion in the

form of a summary and to submit it to the Council at its thirtieth session. The present report

is submitted pursuant to that request.

II. Opening statement

4. In her opening statement, the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner stated that

terrorism destabilized Governments, undermined societies, jeopardized peace and security

and threatened economic and social development, all of which had serious implications for

the enjoyment of human rights by all. Terrorist attacks had devastating consequences for

victims, often directly impacting their rights to life, liberty and security. However, direct

victims were not the only ones affected; relatives and entire communities lived in fear and

suffered long-standing trauma following attacks. The recent spate of attacks illustrated the

direct impact of terrorism on human rights.

5. The human rights of victims of terrorism needed to be acknowledged and their loss

and dignity recognized. Victims needed immediate assistance and long-term medical,

psychosocial and financial support to compensate for the destruction of their property or

loss of their livelihood and jobs. Victims also had the right to equal access to justice and an

effective remedy, with a view to benefiting from adequate and prompt reparation for the

harm suffered.

6. For counter-terrorism efforts to be successful, dealing with the aftermath of

terrorism was not sufficient, rather prevention was necessary and critical. Prevention of

terrorism required understanding the conditions conducive to such abhorrent acts, including

a deeper appreciation of the linkages between such conditions and the lack of respect for

human rights, corruption, impunity, absence of rule of law and lack of development and

prospects for a peaceful future. Terrorism tended to thrive in situations of prolonged armed

conflict, chronic instability and systemic human rights violations, including discrimination,

1 All written contributions to the discussion are available at https://extranet.ohchr.org/sites/hrc/

HRCSessions/RegularSessions/29thSession/Pages/OralStatement.aspx?MeetingNumber=37&

MeetingDate=Tuesday, 30 June 2015.

exclusion and lack of participation in political life and the conduct of public affairs and

socioeconomic marginalization. Those problems were often compounded by a lack of

accountability – with impunity of perpetrators prevailing in many situations –, a lack of

access to justice and a remedy for victims of human rights violations and abuses. The

Deputy High Commissioner emphasized that, in that context, States had the primary

responsibility for investigating and, where evidence warranted, prosecuting the perpetrators

of violations in full compliance with international norms, in particular those regarding due

process and fair trial.

7. Through the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the

General Assembly in September 2006 (see General Assembly resolution 60/288), Member

States had agreed a holistic, integrated and effective approach to counter terrorism, with

human rights and rule of law as its basis. The Deputy High Commissioner noted, however,

that the Strategy had not yet translated into uniform practice on the ground. She also noted

that measures taken by a number of States in the wake of recent security threats continued

to raise serious human rights concerns. In line with the Strategy and international law,

regular review of counter-terrorism laws and practices was critical to ensure that they are

human rights-compliant and, in particular, specific, necessary, effective and proportionate.

The Deputy High Commissioner recalled that such review was particularly important given

that some States had enacted broadly formulated counter-terrorism legislation that did not

comply with the principle of legality because it lacked sufficiently precise definitions of

what constituted terrorist acts. The breadth and scope of that type of legislation allowed for

arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by authorities. The application of the death penalty

to broadly construed terrorism-related offences also remained a serious concern, especially

where such offences did not rise to the level of “most serious crimes”, the threshold

required by article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The

Deputy High Commissioner also noted that some States sought to bypass the criminal

justice system by using administrative detention, other forms of detention and control

orders on persons suspected of terrorism, without respecting the safeguards enshrined in

international law. Such laws had been used to curb otherwise legitimate activities and to

target journalists, human rights defenders, minority groups and other individuals, some of

whom had been arbitrarily detained and tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman and

dehumanizing treatment or punishment while in custody.

8. Noting that the rights to freedom of opinion and expression constitute the foundation

for every free and democratic society, the Deputy High Commissioner discussed the

relationship between counter-terrorism laws and those rights. In accordance with

international human rights law, any restriction on freedom of expression must be clearly

and narrowly defined and must meet the three-part test of legality, proportionality and

necessity. Offences such as “encouragement of terrorism”, “extremist activity”, “praising”

“glorifying” or “justifying” terrorism must be clearly defined so as not to interfere

unnecessarily and disproportionately with freedom of expression.

9. Lastly, the Deputy High Commissioner recalled that experience at the national level

showed that protecting human rights and ensuring respect for the rule of law contributed to

countering terrorism, in particular 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. Conversely, undue restrictions on human rights had proven corrosive to the rule

of law and conducive to a climate of impunity and might therefore undermine the

effectiveness of counter-terrorism measures. It was time to stop basing policy on the false

dichotomy between security and human rights, which, she emphasized, were

complementary and mutually reinforcing. States should focus on policies and initiatives

that increase the enjoyment of all rights — not just civil and political rights, but also

economic, social and cultural rights. Swiftly addressing actual or perceived marginalization

or exclusion of particular communities was crucial.

III. Statements by panellists

10. The panellists emphasized the complementarity and mutually reinforcing nature of

security and human rights and stressed that respect for international law, including

international human rights law, was of key importance when taking measures to combat

terrorism. The devastating impact of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights and the

importance of recognizing the rights of victims of terrorism were also noted.

11. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and

fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism endorsed the Deputy High

Commissioner’s opening remarks and stated that the core of his mandate was to ensure the

protection and promotion of human rights while countering terrorism. He emphasized the

importance of the core guiding principles of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism

Strategy, which put the rule of law and promotion of human rights at the front and centre of

all counter-terrorism action.

12. The Special Rapporteur stated that victims of terrorism deserved more attention. He

considered it striking that, despite the proliferation of counter-terrorism agreements, none

of those negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations focused on the rights of

victims. In his first report to the Human Rights Council in 2012 (A/HRC/20/14), the

Special Rapporteur proposed framework principles for securing the human rights of victims

of terrorism, focusing on effective prevention, investigation, due process rights and the

responsibility of States to provide reparations to victims. He urged all States to recognize

that human rights violations in the context of terrorism could be committed by State and

non-State actors alike. He welcomed the high-level conference planned by the Counter-

Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office in the coming months to discuss and move

forward on the framework principles. However, he noted that highly influential non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) and States rejected the notion that terrorist acts could

amount to human rights violations. From a victim-centred perspective, he believed that the

stance that only States could commit human rights violations was dangerous and that

human rights law must keep pace with the changing world in order to retain its validity. To

deny that victims of terrorism have suffered grave and often gross and systematic human

rights violations would be to render them prisoners of doctrine.

13. In his report on the human rights challenges posed by the fight against the Islamic

State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (A/HRC/29/51), the Special Rapporteur noted the failure

of the Security Council to take effective action to enforce international law and protect

civilians in areas under ISIL control and stressed the need for the international coalition of

States currently engaged in military action against ISIL in Iraq and the Syrian Arab

Republic to ensure that effective steps were taken to minimize the risk of civilian casualties

and to be transparent about such losses when they occur. While there were some human

rights concerns in respect of the conduct of international coalition forces in Iraq, he found

that, based on the available evidence, the coalition-inflicted casualties paled in comparison

to the horrific crimes systematically committed by ISIL. The report provides an assessment

of the scale of the violations of international law committed by ISIL in the territory it

occupies, which include crimes reportedly amounting to genocide, crimes against humanity,

serious violations of international humanitarian law and gross violations of international

human rights law. The findings of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on

the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq and the Office of

the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) showed clear

evidence of persecution of religious and ethnic minority communities, including the

Yezidis; arbitrary executions of community leaders, journalists, intellectuals and others;

mass disappearances; forced religious conversion; and systematic torture. The enforcement

of summary justice in areas under ISIL control included public beheadings, stoning,

amputations, lashes, displays of mutilated corpses as a purported deterrent, systematic

gender-based violence, rape, sexual slavery and the targeting of sexual minorities. Children

had been subjected to summary executions, arbitrary detention and torture. The Special

Rapporteur underlined that those were all crimes and violations of international

humanitarian law which amounted to grave human rights violations.

14. The Deputy Director of the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office

and the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre noted the continuing need to address the

ever-changing phenomenon of terrorism in the lead-up to the tenth anniversary of the

United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in 2016. He reaffirmed the importance

of ensuring that responses and effective solutions to terrorism remained grounded within

the four pillars of the Strategy, and highlighted that the Strategy considered security and

human rights as complementary and mutually reinforcing.

15. The Deputy Director stated that the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force

comprised 36 United Nations and affiliated entities. The main functions of the Counter-

Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office was to coordinate and facilitate United

Nations counter-terrorism initiatives and activities and provide support to Member States in

preventing and combating terrorism. He noted the key role played by OHCHR within the

Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office to ensure that its programmatic work

was based on the international human rights legal framework. The establishment of the

United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre within the Counter-Terrorism Implementation

Task Force Office in 2011, with the support of the Government of Saudi Arabia and other

donors, has allowed it to better support capacity-building efforts for Member States under

the rubric of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Both the Counter-

Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office and the United Nations Counter-Terrorism

Centre give high priority to the protection of human rights while combating terrorism and

to supporting victims of terrorism, in addition to other strategic priorities.

16. Terrorist groups are tearing apart the social fabric of countries and the four pillars of

the United Nations. Human rights abuses and violations are carried out on an

unprecedented scale, creating flows of refugees and internally displaced persons not seen

since the end of the Second World War. ISIL in particular has committed egregious human

rights violations and must be held to account.

17. National, regional and international efforts to respond to terrorism through military

or other means had sometimes been disproportionate, resulting in violations of human

rights and a lack of protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, which had effectively

provided terrorist groups with fuel for more hatred. Respect for human rights must remain

the foundation of counter-terrorism efforts. In that context, the entities of the Counter-

Terrorism Implementation Task Force would continue to support efforts to strengthen the

responses of Member States to terrorist acts to ensure that they are grounded in respect for

international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international refugee

law, including through capacity-building and training.

18. The Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office coordinates 11 Working

Groups that deal with various issues, including border security, countering the financing of

terrorism, security for critical infrastructure, support for human rights while countering

terrorism and victims of terrorism. Those Working Groups have increased the capacity of

Member States to counter terrorism through a number of important initiatives. For example,

the Working Group on promoting and protecting human rights and the rule of law seeks to

build the capacity of law enforcement institutions in Member States through a training

curriculum based on human rights-compliant approaches within a counter-terrorism context

on issues such as detention, special investigative techniques, use of force and investigative

interviewing. The Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office has already piloted

training in Nigeria, and will soon roll out training sessions in other interested Member

States. With regard to prevention, the Secretary-General is expected to launch a plan of

action on preventing violent extremism later in 2015. It is aimed at reinvigorating the

universal core values of the international community, based on the Charter of the United

Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to present concrete proposals

on how the United Nations system and Member States could best approach the challenge of

violent extremism leading to terrorism.

19. The recent terrorist attacks in Tunisia, Kuwait, France and Egypt further emphasized

the need for States to uphold their obligation to ensure security for those under their

jurisdiction. However, this must not be at the expense of their human rights obligations

under international law. Human rights violations can lead to further radicalization towards

violence, especially of youth. In particular, the rights to the freedoms of speech, association

and assembly should not be arbitrarily restricted, as they are fundamental to helping

societies to combat violent extremism. On 16 June 2015, the United Nations Counter-

Terrorism Centre organized an online panel discussion entitled “An exit for extremists:

digital solutions for online counter-radicalization”, in which Google Ideas, Facebook and

civil society participated. The panel discussed how to handle online content that called for

violence and how to monitor material communicated through the networks, while at the

same time ensuring privacy, freedom of expression and access to information. The

discussion highlighted the importance of being more inclusive and engaging more with the

private sector.

20. With regard to victims of terrorism, the international community was urged to

acknowledge that it was often ordinary individuals who bore the brunt of acts of terrorism.

The Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office established a portal 2 to provide

victims of terrorism with the necessary resources and information, including those provided

by Member States and civil society. The Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force

Office and the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre were deeply committed to

ensuring that victims were at the centre of their activities. To that end, both the Counter-

Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office and the United Nations Counter-Terrorism

Centre had promoted solidarity for victims of terrorism, provided assistance and

rehabilitative services and ensured that victims of terrorism had a voice in counter-

narratives to violent extremism. The Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office

also planned to provide training in order to empower victims of terrorism to be part of

effective counter-narrative strategies.

21. The Chief of Implementation Support Section III referred to the ways in which

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. He emphasized the crucial

role of technical assistance and capacity-building in preventing and countering terrorism,

the need to do more to protect and to take preventive action and the importance of

increasing the capacity of States to ensure human rights and rule of law-based responses to

terrorism.

22. Terrorism violated the most basic human rights, including the right to life, among

other civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. The

importance of the right to security of person was a fundamental right enshrined in article 3

of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, security was often wrongly

perceived as limiting human rights. He quoted a Tunisian activist, Amira Yahyaoui, who

had recently stated:

2 See www.un.org/victimsofterrorism/en.

For human rights activists, security is a taboo. Security means you are anti-human

rights. But that gives space to those who are not very keen on human rights to take

care of this topic. I think that people from a human rights background should be

more involved in security issues, and stop thinking that security is a taboo. If we

want to defend people’s rights, the first thing we need to defend is their right to live

and not to die. That’s the first step.3

23. The international community now recognized the important nexus between security

and development and their interdependence. The new comprehensive, integrated and

universal sustainable development goals should provide an important framework for a

United Nations common effort in this area. 4 On the one hand, the new agenda recognizes

the need to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies; on the other hand, it is expected that

at the summit to be held in September 2015, when the post-2015 development agenda is

expected to be adopted, Member States will recognize the need to “strengthen national

institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels,

in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime”.5

24. UNODC supported Member States in implementing the United Nations Global

Counter-Terrorism Strategy, in particular its criminal justice aspects. The Terrorism

Prevention Branch supported Member States’ efforts to ensure effective and efficient

criminal justice responses to prevent and counter terrorism, including by developing multi-

year cooperation plans with a number of countries.

25. The right to be protected was emphasized as a key aspect of the right to security of

person. In recent years, traditional security-oriented approaches had been increasingly

recognized as insufficient to effectively address the threat of terrorism, particularly in the

medium and long term. UNODC believed that a long-term approach to countering terrorism

must encompass prevention, with more focus on the plans and activities of terrorist groups.

Such a preventative approach required that lawful investigative and evidentiary

mechanisms be established by Member States to facilitate prosecutorial intervention before

tragedies occur, while respecting procedural safeguards.

26. Criminalization was an important tool for preventing violent extremism, however, it

carried significant risks of arbitrary limitations on the right to the freedoms of expression,

religion and association. Therefore, UNODC was enhancing its efforts to assist Member

States in developing legislation and criminal justice capacities to punish conduct that spread

ideas supportive of violent extremism, while complying with fundamental freedoms. For

example, terrorists utilized the Internet to recruit terrorists and incite the commission of acts

of terror. The Internet also allowed terrorists to spread their message to a worldwide

audience at a low cost. UNODC has developed specialized training programmes that

address the facilitation of violent extremism over the Internet.

27. The international community needs to do more in the area of preventing

radicalization to violence in prison settings. UNODC assisted Member States in building

and reforming their prison systems and in implementing non-custodial sanctions and

measures aimed at the prevention of violent extremism in compliance with human rights.

3 Amira Yahyaoui, President, Al Bawsala NGO, Tunisia, quoted in Ilya Lozovsky, A Wake-Up Call for

NGOs, Foreign Policy, 5 June 2015, available from http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/05/a-wake-up-

call-for-ngos-tunisia-arab-spring-oslo-freedom-forum/.

4 For more information on the post-2015 sustainable development goals process, see the United Nations

Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, available at

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300.

5 Goal 16 (a) of the proposed sustainable development goals.

28. Policymakers increasingly recognized the important role that victims of terrorism

and their stories could play in efforts to counter violent extremism. UNODC integrated

programmes on victims of terrorism in its technical assistance to Member States.

Strengthening criminal justice responses to support victims enhanced the resilience of

States to counter terrorism and violent extremism.

29. Developing the capacity of States to ensure rule of law-based responses to terrorism

was underscored as being the most important factor in preventing terrorism and violent

extremism. Several General Assembly and Security Council resolutions identified human

rights violations as major factors conducive to terrorism, including, to a significant extent,

human rights violations committed in the context of countering terrorism. There was often a

perception in United Nations forums that the right to security and the security of rights

were, by definition, limiting, if not in contradiction with one another. That is a totally faulty

perception because both concepts are complementary. There is no security if the right to

security of person is not properly recognized and protected. Likewise, there is no right to

security of person if the protection and security of all other rights are not ensured. The

Chief of Implementation Support Section III concluded by quoting the Secretary-General:

“Missiles may kill terrorists. But I am convinced that good governance is what will kill

terrorism.”6

IV. Summary of the discussion

30. During the ensuing discussion, contributions were made by representatives of

Albania (on behalf of a group of States), Algeria, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, China, Cuba,

Denmark (on behalf of the Nordic States), Ecuador (on behalf of the Community of Latin

American and Caribbean States), Egypt, Estonia, Hungary (on behalf of a group of States),

India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Namibia, the

Netherlands, the Niger, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Switzerland (on behalf of a

group of States), the Syrian Arab Republic, the United States of America and Viet Nam, as

well as the Council of Europe, the European Union, the Holy See and the International

Organization of la Francophonie. Statements by Australia, Brazil, Fiji, Iraq, Lebanon,

Libya, Mauritania, Norway, the Russian Federation, South Africa, the Sudan and Tunisia

were not delivered owing to lack of time. Copies of their statements were, however, posted

on the Human Rights Council extranet.

31. Representatives of the following national human rights institutions and NGOs also

took the floor: Human Rights Council of Morocco, Human Rights Watch (in a joint

statement with International Service for Human Rights and International Federation for

Human Rights Leagues), Al Salam Foundation, CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen

Participation, Friends World Committee for Consultation (in a joint statement with

Amnesty International), Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Arab

Commission for Human Rights and Amuta for NGO Responsibility.

A. Effect of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights

32. Many delegates began their statements by offering condolences to the people of

Tunisia, France, Kuwait and Egypt, which had recently suffered terrorist attacks, and the

people of the Syrian Arab Republic, Iraq and Nigeria, who were victims of terrorist attacks

on an almost daily basis. Most delegates found that terrorism constituted a serious

6 See the Secretary-General’s remarks at the G7 working session on Terrorism, held at Schloss Elmau,

Germany, on 8 June 2015.

challenge for all States and a grave threat to international peace and security, and that they

had had a dire impact on the ability of all persons to enjoy their human rights. One delegate

considered that the international community was experiencing terrorism that was

transcending traditional borders in an unprecedented way.

33. Another delegate stated that the effect of terrorism on human rights should be

studied because no country was safe from terrorism, as witnessed in Kuwait, Tunisia and

France, the week before the discussion, and in Egypt, the day before the discussion, where

the Prosecutor General was murdered in a terrorist attack. Some aspects of the resolution,

further to which the panel discussion had been convened, were highlighted, for example,

focus on the effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of various rights, especially the rights to

safety and life, and other political, economic and cultural rights. It was underlined that

fighting terrorism and protecting human rights were mutually reinforcing and that

effectively combating terrorism required cooperation among all stakeholders.

34. Some delegates noted that terrorism could strike anywhere and at any time and that

terrorist acts had very negative effects on the enjoyment of human rights, including

depriving individuals of the right to life, liberty, health and security of person, as well as

economic, social and cultural rights, including access to food and water, education and

health services. One delegate described how terrorist acts had led not only to a heavy death

toll, but also to the movement of several thousands of refugees and internally displaced

persons in its territory. Another delegate said that attacks on religious establishments

undermined the right to freedom of religion and belief and the right to security of person,

and led to destruction of private property. The representative of an NGO stated that violent

acts by groups of non-State actors against the general population for political purposes

constituted abhorrent crimes that, when widespread or systematic, could amount to crimes

against humanity.

35. Many delegates pointed out that terrorism was not linked to any religion, ethnic

group, nationality or nation. Some specified that spreading fear — which is the aim of

terrorism — was contrary to religious teachings and practices, which called for peace. The

international community need to ensure that counter-terrorism efforts do not stigmatize

certain communities; it was regretted that Muslims were often believed to be a threat.

36. One delegate urged States to adopt and implement multidimensional national

strategies for combating terrorism, stating that spreading awareness about human rights and

the values of tolerance was critical. Engagement with imams with a view to promoting the

ideals of tolerant Islam was highlighted as a powerful tool for fostering a society free of

terrorism. The representative of an NGO highlighted that religious leaders could play a role

in combating extremism at the local, regional and international levels.

37. Some delegates called for a distinction to be made between State and non-State

actors and indicated that, as parties to international human rights treaties, States had

obligations to uphold human rights, whereas terrorists were criminals and should be treated

as such. One delegate noted that combating terrorism involved political and security issues

that would be dealt with more appropriately by the General Assembly and the Security

Council; the Human Rights Council should focus on ensuring that any measures taken to

combat counter-terrorism do not impact human rights. Another delegate highlighted the

importance of the Council being able to reaffirm a united and consensual position on this

issue.

B. Combating terrorism while respecting human rights

38. Participants highlighted the obligations of States to protect the human rights of

individuals under their jurisdiction and to take counter-terrorism measures that complied

with international law, in particular the right to freedom of expression. They also noted the

impact that counter-terrorism measures could have on human rights, including the

prohibition of torture and arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial. The need to comply

with the principles of distinction and proportionality in armed conflict under international

humanitarian law was also stressed. Those were all principles that needed to be adhered to

when preventing terrorism.

39. Many delegates highlighted the complementarity between security and human

rights, while acknowledging that current State practices often mistakenly pitted the two

principles against one another. One delegate, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said

that States must ensure that their actions complied with the Charter of the United Nations,

international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international refugee

law, by protecting their populations while ensuring fair trials for persons accused of having

committed terrorist acts, as well as assisting victims. Another delegate considered that anti-

terrorism strategies should safeguard rights and freedoms, while yet another stressed the

importance of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and of States becoming parties to

the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or

Punishment and its Optional Protocol.

40. One delegate said that States should deny safe haven to those who incited, planned,

financed, supported or committed terrorist attacks. Another delegate noted that, despite

United Nations resolutions to combat terrorism over the previous two decades, certain

terrorist organizations continued to be financed, including by States, and that that practice

must be stopped. One delegate stated that robust and decisive measures needed to be taken

in that regard, not only by the countries affected, but also by the international community as

a whole. It suggested that the international community commission comprehensive studies

on the origins, motives and funding of terrorist groups.

41. Several participants called for all terrorist acts to be punished and for a holistic

approach to countering terrorism that required expanding the scope of legal instruments to

bring the perpetrators of terrorist acts to justice. In response to questions regarding the

responsibility of States to protect populations against widespread and systematic human

rights violations by non-State armed groups, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and

protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism stressed

that accountability must be ensured on both sides of the equation and that public officials

engaged in counter-terrorism activities must be brought to justice. With regard to

accountability for violations of the rights of victims of terrorism perpetrated by non-State

armed groups, the Special Rapporteur stated that, although the Security Council had

declared ISIL a threat to international peace and security and had stressed the need to bring

perpetrators to justice, it had been very reluctant to authorize military action pursuant to its

powers under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations or to refer the situation in

Iraq and Syrian Arab Republic to the International Criminal Court. He added that the

Security Council resolution putting ISIL on the list of terrorist organizations would not

prevent it from continuing to commit human rights abuses. The Special Rapporteur also

underlined that the time had come to recognize that the permanent members of the Security

Council had an obligation to act and that, in the event of reports of genocide, all members

of the Council, individually, may have a specific legal responsibility to take action and to

refrain from using their veto power to block action to prevent that most serious of

international crimes.

42. The Chief of the Implementation Support Section III of UNODC Terrorism

Prevention Branch stated that concrete efforts should be made to prevent terrorism,

including adhering to the rule of law, which contributed to avoiding radicalization. He

recalled that measures to criminalize incitement and recruitment must be fully compatible

with the principle of legality. Such measures often relied on intelligence and circumstantial

evidence, which could pose challenges in terms of human rights. Thus, appropriate rule of

law-based approaches aligned with the principles of necessity and proportionality must be

identified. He also mentioned that UNODC had integrated human rights good practices in

its curricula and believed that more engagement with parliamentarians was important.

43. A number of delegates cautioned that attempts to prevent terrorism were

unnecessarily and disproportionately infringing on human rights — particularly civil and

political rights. One delegate noted that the freedoms of peaceful assembly, expression and

association facilitated a range of other human rights and were key elements of open and

democratic societies because the ability to share and challenge ideas, and to organize was

vital to the health of any society. A society without those rights would stagnate. Under

human rights law, any limitations on the freedom of expression must be provided by law

and be necessary for respect for the rights or reputation of others or the protection of

national security, public order, public health or morals. Any limitations must be in

accordance with an appropriate, transparent and legal framework and national security

agencies must have appropriate authority and oversight to allow States to respond quickly

to threats to national security while respecting their human rights obligations. Another

delegate said that State efforts should not constrain civil society and that, when States

committed human rights violations in the name of counter-terrorism, they played into the

hands of terrorist groups. Other delegates noted that social media had often been used to

spread radical messages and for purposes such as incitement to terrorism.

44. Representatives of NGOs and national human rights institutions provided specific

examples of instances in which the freedoms of speech, expression and association had

been curtailed as States attempted to combat terrorism. Concern at laws on terrorism that

lacked the requisite specificity was voiced and reference was made to overly broad counter-

terrorism measures which had a negative impact on and arbitrarily restricted human rights

and which were in breach of the principle of legality. States should not use counter-

terrorism as a smokescreen to stifle dissenting voices and Governments had a responsibility

to protect those under their jurisdiction from extremist attacks, but should not use counter-

terrorism as a reason to prosecute alleged terrorism offences in mass trials, conduct mass

surveillance or pass legislation with large discretionary powers.

45. One delegate, speaking on behalf of a regional group of States, referred to the

problematic use of the death penalty in counter-terrorism efforts. Concern was expressed

that States resorted to the death penalty for authors of acts of terrorism, even when the

offence of terrorism was broadly and vaguely defined. The fact that intergovernmental

organizations provided assistance to States that applied the death penalty was highlighted,

and the panellists were asked about the steps that United Nations agencies had taken to

ensure that the support and assistance they provided did not render them complicit in

executions. In response, the Deputy Director of the Counter-Terrorism Implementation

Task Force Office and the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Centre stated that the

Secretary-General continued to condemn the death penalty in all circumstances and that the

work of the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office was conducted within

the international human rights legal framework. The Chief of Implementation Support

Section III stated that UNODC technical assistance interventions integrated protection of

human rights in all areas. He noted that UNODC had suspended cooperation with countries

that had not respected human rights or democratic principles.

46. One delegate highlighted the need for women’s rights to be central to all efforts to

counter terrorism, noting that extremists had placed the subordination of women and the

denial of their rights at the heart of their strategy. It advocated for the Human Rights

Council to continue to advance the promotion and protection of women’s full and equal

enjoyment of all human rights.

47. With reference to the impact of counter-terrorism measures on international

humanitarian law, one delegate stated that the Government had paid a colossal price for the

ongoing war on terrorism, and deemed that all States were responsible for avoiding

casualties of non-combatants or “collateral damage”. The delegate stated that it was vital to

ensure respect for the rule of law and due process of law and to avoid illegal practices such

as torture, incommunicado detention and extrajudicial killings.

48. Participants noted that, although terrorist acts jeopardized peace and security and

threatened social and economic development, the option of launching wars in the name of

countering terrorism must be meticulously considered. The so-called “war on terrorism”

had fostered an ideology of fear and repression that ultimately created enemies and

promoted violence. Also, some Governments used terrorism as an excuse to subvert

political opponents.

49. The international community and States should do more to strengthen education,

training, awareness-raising and development because they were important bulwarks against

isolation, disenchantment and radicalization of youth. With regard to ensuring that counter-

terrorism measures respected human rights, the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task

Force Office had developed basic human rights reference guides and specific modules to

build the capacity of law enforcement bodies. The Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task

Force Office worked with a wide range of national and regional partners, most recently the

African Union, to ensure their compliance with the United Nations Global Counter-

Terrorism Strategy. It conducted training for police, worked with partners to combat the

financing of terrorism and collaborated with national actors to find ways to build trust

between civil society actors and the security establishment. However, such capacity-

building interventions threatened to be undermined by the corrosion of State legitimacy that

occurs when a State undertakes counter-terrorism measures that disrespect due process.

50. Several delegates referred to the need to tackle the root causes of terrorism,

including by preventing the spread of violent extremism through different media. One

delegate’s Government had engaged in preventive actions against terrorism, published a list

of wanted persons, worked with international organizations to bring perpetrators of

terrorism to justice, created a rehabilitation centre to provide intellectual rehabilitation for

former terrorists and provided significant financial support to an international counter-

terrorism centre in 2005. The delegate stated that international efforts should focus on three

vital dimensions: prevention, deterrence and security, and policymaking.

51. Member States highlighted the need for more global coordination. Regarding

coordination efforts, one delegate’s Government had coordinated with counter-terrorism

and judicial practitioners worldwide, including at the International Centre for Counter-

Terrorism, in the Netherlands, and the International Institute for Justice and the Rule of

Law, in Malta; another delegate stressed that success in the fight against terrorism went

hand in hand with progress in strengthening cooperation and exchange of information at the

international, regional and subregional levels and it had worked as part of the global

initiatives against international terrorism.

V. Conclusions

52. In their concluding remarks, the panellists highlighted the enduring value of

the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which remains of core

relevance almost 10 years after its adoption. While the fourth pillar of the Strategy

specifically focuses on human rights, it was emphasized that the entire Strategy rests

on human rights principles. Respect for those principles is a prerequisite to any

effective counter-terrorism response. Measures taken in breach of these principles

only serve to foster a sense of injustice; they can have a corrosive effect on the

legitimacy of a State in the eyes of the people and undermine all the pillars of the

Strategy.

53. In terms of the practical application of human rights principles, the panellists

referred to the existing guidance relating to the implementation of counter-terrorism

measures in a manner that complies with human rights, including the collection of

best practices compiled by the previous Special Rapporteur on the promotion and

protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,

Martin Scheinin. The panellists also noted the need for strengthened cooperation

between States, international organizations and civil society to assist in finding human

rights-compliant solutions to challenging issues, such as responding to threats posed

by foreign fighters.

54. Finally, the panellists highlighted the importance of ensuring and fulfilling the

rights of victims of terrorism. Victims of terrorism need to be given access to

information and to have a real voice in society. While having a voice is their right, it

could also be an integral part of a preventive strategy, whereby victims provide a

compelling counter-narrative of the horrific and destructive impact of terrorism on

people’s lives.

55. Recent developments have brought to the fore the issue of conditions conducive

to terrorism, which is the focus of the first pillar of the Strategy and closely linked to

the issue of respect for human rights while countering terrorism. While there was

remarkable consensus on what constituted conditions conducive to terrorism at the

time that the Strategy was developed, insufficient action on that point has been taken.

Therefore, the emphasis on preventing and countering violent extremism, including

through the Secretary-General’s forthcoming plan of action on the issue, is much

needed.