33/28 Outcome of the panel discussion on the human rights dimensions of preventing and countering violent extremism

GE.16-13357(E)



Human Rights Council Thirty-third 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

Outcome of the panel discussion on the human rights dimensions of preventing and countering violent extremism

Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Summary

The present report is being submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution

30/15. It provides a summary of the panel discussion on the human rights dimensions of

preventing and countering violent extremism held on 17 March 2016, during the thirty-first

session of the Council.

I. Introduction

1. The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 30/15, decided to convene a panel at its

thirty-first session to discuss the human rights dimensions of preventing and countering

violent extremism. The panel discussion was held on 17 March 2016.

2. The panel discussion was chaired by the President of the Human Rights Council and

included four panellists:

(a) Nazila Ghanea serves on the Board of Trustees of the Universal Rights Group

and is a member of the Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief of the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Associate Professor in International

Human Rights Law and Fellow of Kellogg College at the University of Oxford;

(b) Gastón Garatea, Professor at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru,

formerly held the position of Chair of the National Bureau for the Fight against Poverty in

Peru and is a former member of the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission;

(c) Mehreen Farooq, Senior Fellow with the World Organization for Resource

Development and Education, leads research projects that explore the capacity of local civil

society organizations to promote peace and counter violent extremism and helps

policymakers and communities to support programmes that build resilience against violent

extremism;

(d) Ahmed Abbadi is Secretary-General of the Moroccan League of

Mohammedan Scholars, Professor at Cadi Ayyad University of Marrakesh, where he

teaches comparative history of religions and Islamic thought, and has served as Director of

Islamic Affairs at the Ministry of Islamic Affairs of Morocco.

3. Following the introductory statement by the Secretary-General, the Deputy High

Commissioner for Human Rights delivered the opening statement. The panel discussion

was moderated by the Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office

and other international organizations in Geneva, Beatriz Londoño Soto. After an initial

round of contributions by the panellists, 31 States (some on behalf of a group of countries),

two intergovernmental organizations and seven non-governmental organizations (on behalf

of a total of 18 non-governmental organizations) contributed to the interactive discussion.

4. In its resolution 30/15, the Human Rights Council requested that the Office of the

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights prepare a report on the panel

discussion in the form of a summary. The present report was prepared pursuant to that

request.

II. Opening statements

A. Statement by the Secretary-General

5. In his video message, the Secretary-General welcomed the discussion on the human

rights dimensions of preventing and countering violent extremism. He emphasized that

human rights abuses by violent extremists constitute direct assaults on the Charter of the

United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Secretary-General

referred to his Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism,1 in which he stressed that

human rights and the rule of law played a central role in preventing and countering violent

extremism.

6. The Secretary-General stated that, while there could be no justification for violent

extremism, its drivers needed to be examined if effective and rights-based responses

addressing discrimination, ensuring good governance and providing access to education,

social services and employment opportunities were to be developed. The Secretary-General

noted that such steps could help strengthen trust between State institutions and the people

they served. While violent extremist groups were acting with growing impunity, it was

essential for the fight against violent extremism to fully respect human rights.

7. The Secretary-General stressed that violent extremism must be addressed as an

urgent human rights priority, avoiding the use of sweeping definitions of terrorism or

violent extremism that encroached on human rights. He concluded that full respect for

human rights and accountability for wrongdoing were essential to heal broken societies and

successfully counter the threat posed by violent extremists.

B. Statement by the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights

8. In her opening statement, the Deputy High Commissioner noted that the Secretary-

General’s Plan of Action was rights-affirming, ambitious and far-reaching, as it pointed to

the broader factors that underlay, fostered and promoted violent extremism. Conditions

conducive to violent extremism included real or perceived discrimination and injustice,

political disenfranchisement, youth disenchantment and denial of identity. She reiterated

the Secretary-General’s reminder that in recent years disregard for human rights had often

exacerbated those conditions. Preventing and countering violent extremism required

mobilizing a multitude of actors from a wide range of perspectives and sectors, all with

actions firmly grounded in human rights and the rule of law. The Deputy High

Commissioner highlighted three core messages: (a) responses to violent extremism that

respected and protected human rights were more effective and sustainable than responses

that did not; (b) equality and non-discrimination were the bedrock of preventing and

countering violent extremism; and (c) accountability for human rights violations and abuses

was essential for finding enduring solutions to violent extremism.

9. With regard to the need for a human rights-compliant response, the Deputy High

Commissioner noted that poor governance, repressive policies and practices that violated

human rights constituted the breeding ground for violent extremism. The negative impact of

heavy-handed counter-terrorism measures following 11 September 2001 had only widened

the rift between communities, deepened distrust and generated a hateful public discourse.

One of the key lessons learned was that the selective application of the label “violent

extremism” only to Muslims reinforced intolerance and discrimination. She stressed that

upholding respect for freedom of religion, belief, opinion and expression was fundamental

to the struggle against violent extremism. It was important to safeguard the space in which

civil society could voice the concerns of diverse groups and communities and in which

people’s involvement in decision-making could be facilitated. Any actions and measures to

prevent or counter violent extremism must not be allowed to place unnecessary and

disproportionate restrictions on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights.

10. The Deputy High Commissioner noted that equality and non-discrimination

constituted a strong foundation for preventing and countering violent extremism. Therefore,

1 A/70/674.

laws and policies that combat social exclusion or marginalization were essential elements in

the effective prevention and countering of violent extremism. Enhancing respect for

economic, cultural and social rights by and for everyone, on an equal basis, was key to

immunizing individuals, communities and societies against the rhetoric of violent

extremism. Equal and pluralistic participation in all aspects of political and public life was

essential to building cohesive societies. Respect for women’s human rights and the

provision of quality education based on human rights were indispensable in helping to

create understanding and mutual respect between communities.

11. Furthermore, the Deputy High Commissioner referred to the Secretary-General’s

Plan of Action, which underscored that violent extremism must be met with accountability.

Accountability measures were not only a matter of legal obligations, but also the very basis

on which trust in public institutions, duty bearers and public leaders could be fostered.

Counter-terrorism measures that led to human rights violations had been used as a rallying

cry by violent extremists in the recruitment of new supporters. Access to justice and

remedies was crucial for upholding the dignity of victims of terrorism and violent

extremism, both in cases where State or non-State actors had committed the violations or

the abuse. In particular, women and girls who had suffered torture, ill-treatment and sexual

violence must be provided with redress, including all the support they need.

12. The Deputy High Commissioner welcomed the focus on preventing and countering

violent extremism as a shift away from a “security-only” approach. The Secretary-

General’s Plan of Action gave new impetus to addressing the conditions conducive to the

spread of terrorism and to taking measures to ensure respect for human rights for all, as set

out in pillars I and IV of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.2 In

conclusion, she recalled the Secretary-General’s words of caution: it was important to avoid

sweeping definitions of violent extremism that encroached on human rights. The

broadening of the notion “violent extremism” to mere “extremism” was potentially

destructive, and political opponents or critics of governmental action should not

automatically be considered as extremists. The Deputy High Commissioner stressed that

words and ideas should not be conflated with actual conduct, and that dissent and debate

were essential to human progress.

III. Initial contributions of the panellists

13. The Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations Office and other

international organizations in Geneva, who was also the moderator of the panel, opened the

panel discussion. She recalled that, in its resolution 30/15, the Human Rights Council had

reaffirmed that violent extremism constituted a serious common concern for all States and

had noted that while there could be no excuse or justification for violent extremism, abuses

and violations of human rights may be among the elements that contributed to creating an

environment in which people, especially youth, were vulnerable to the kind of

radicalization that leads to violent extremism and recruitment by violent extremists and

terrorists.

14. After introducing the first panellist, Ms. Ghanea, the moderator asked her to explain

how States and the international community should respond to violent extremism, also in

view of the Human Rights Council’s reaffirmation of the international obligations of States

to promote and protect human rights while preventing and countering violent extremism, as

well as the commitment of States to address the conditions conducive to violent extremism.

2 General Assembly resolution 60/288.

15. Ms. Ghanea referred to Human Rights Council resolution 30/15, in which the

Council emphasized that all actions to prevent and counter violent extremism must be in

full compliance with international human rights law, refugee law and international

humanitarian law. She stressed that those safeguards were crucial because otherwise the

very actions aiming at preventing violent extremism would themselves risk fuelling further

violent extremism. Positive investments in ensuring full compliance with article 18 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of religion or belief could

provide a bulwark against violent extremism. The important link between upholding

freedom of religion or belief and inoculating against intolerance had already been made in

the final document of the international consultative conference on school education in

relation to freedom of religion or belief, tolerance and non-discrimination, organized by the

Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and held in Madrid from 23 to

25 November 2001.3 She also noted that people may be victims of discrimination on the

basis of their religion or belief, but that discrimination and violence may also be carried out

in the name of religion and thus be based on the religious tenets of the perpetrator.

16. Ms. Ghanea recalled that, in its resolution 16/18, the Human Rights Council had laid

out a number of helpful actions such as collaborative projects in the fields of health,

conflict prevention, employment, media education, training of government officials and the

encouragement of the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas. In that same

resolution, it also stressed the need for non-discrimination, meaningful participation and

strong efforts to counter religious profiling. Drawing attention to the Rabat Plan of Action

on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes

incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,4 Ms. Ghanea described a number of

initiatives to counter incitement to hatred that could contribute to preventing and countering

violent extremism. In the Rabat Plan of Action, the significance of respecting freedom of

expression was recognized and the crucial role of religious and political leaders in speaking

out firmly and promptly was emphasized. The three-fold test of legality, proportionality and

necessity in respect of restrictions on freedom of expression was also stressed as imperative

for preventing and countering violent extremism. Related measures had to be carried out

with care and attention because otherwise there was a risk of discrimination and of

compromising the work of civil society organizations and communities.

17. Ms. Ghanea concluded that human rights violations could flow from overly broad

responses to violent extremism. She recalled that the Special Rapporteur on the promotion

and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism had

warned that the elasticity of the term “violent extremism” could have a serious negative

impact on many human rights.5 In his Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, the

Secretary-General had stressed the need for all legislation, policies, strategies and practices

adopted to prevent violent extremism to be firmly grounded in the respect for human rights

and the rule of law.

18. The moderator then asked the second panellist, Mr. Garatea, in view of his expertise

and experience as former Chair of the National Bureau for the Fight against Poverty in

Peru, to share his views on how poverty eradication projects could be part of the national

strategies to address conditions conducive to violent extremism.

19. Mr. Garatea noted that each party to a conflict had its reasons for taking part in that

conflict. The search for a solution at any price was not the best way to solve disputes but

3 See E/CN.4/2002/73, annex, appendix.

4 See A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, annex, appendix.

5 See A/HRC/31/65, para. 54.

rather the parties involved had to seek a solution themselves. Furthermore, those involved

in extreme violence knew why they had been marginalized.

20. Mr. Garatea stressed that poverty was, to a large extent, a breeding ground for

human rights violations. Therefore, every member of society, at all levels, had to become

involved in efforts to eradicate poverty and everyone, including those from the poorest

strata of society, had to be given opportunities to be heard. By way of example, Mr. Garatea

referred to the forums and inclusive consultations that had been held in Peru since 2000,

including at the national, provincial, district and neighbourhood levels. In all those

consultations, poverty was the defining characteristic and common issue.

21. Mr. Garatea discussed the steps that had been taken subsequently. Affected

communities in Peru had engaged in a series of more than 1,400 public consultations so that

they could find solutions. Those decentralized engagements had continued in Peru and were

still under way after 16 years.

22. The moderator then referred to resolution 30/15, in which the Human Rights

Council stressed the need to address conditions conducive to violent extremism by

engaging with all groups of civil society concerned and, in particular, by empowering

women and youth. The Council also reaffirmed the important role that education, including

human rights education and training, could play in preventing and countering violent

extremism. The moderator asked Ms. Farooq to share her views and experience of the role

that local civil society organizations could play.

23. Ms. Farooq first identified risk factors, to facilitate the detection of vulnerable

individuals, including sociological conditions (such as social alienation and acculturation

difficulties), psychological factors (such as post-traumatic stress and mental illnesses),

economic factors (such as unemployment and related deprivation), political grievances

(such as the perception that Governments are promulgating discriminatory policies against

certain communities) and ideological factors (such as intolerance and the justification of

violence to address grievances). These risk factors also indicated that religious ideology

alone did not lead to the radicalization of individuals.

24. Ms. Farooq said that her organization, the World Organization for Resource

Development and Education, brought together public and private stakeholders to promote

safety and social cohesion. Its work was based on the premise that a public that understands

the threat of violent extremism and the risk factors of radicalization is better equipped to

identify vulnerable individuals and can refer them for an intervention before they engage in

violence. The organization has engaged with a wide range of stakeholders forming part of

an early warning network and has trained hundreds of local law enforcement officers,

educators and faith community members. Special programmes for youth stressed the

importance of recognizing when an individual may express support for an extremist

organization through social media. By placing communities at the forefront and involving

multiple faith communities, programmes to prevent and counter violent extremism could

give them ownership of the agenda and also reduce the stigma experienced by a single faith

community.

25. In conclusion, Ms. Farooq emphasized the critical role of civil society, including

non-governmental organizations, faith-based organizations, religious scholars, educators

and social service providers. In her opinion, civil society was best suited to understanding

the challenges of communities and could more rapidly mobilize resources to respond to

their needs. Civil society entities had to be given the resources to develop their own

prevention efforts. In addition, more States had to be encouraged to develop initiatives to

counter violent extremism in collaboration with civil society, for example by promoting

engagement with religious and tribal leaders and women’s associations. Finally, community

policing had to be improved worldwide so that trust could be fostered between government

officials, law enforcement and communities. Ms. Farooq argued that a paradigm shift may

be required in countries that had historically focused their efforts on security measures

rather than on diversion programmes or other crime prevention programmes.

26. The moderator asked the fourth panellist, Mr. Abbadi, to discuss the role that local

and religious leaders could play in efforts to prevent and counter violent extremism and the

initiatives that were being taken or could be envisaged in order to foster tolerance and better

understanding among all religions, beliefs and cultures.

27. Mr. Abbadi explained that the texts of every religion had to be interpreted in order

for the religion to be placed meaningfully in the modern world context. He stressed the

importance of capacity-building and of understanding the issues faced by individuals in

contemporary society, including youth.

28. Mr. Abbadi noted that Morocco had developed training material to help scholars

understand how to reach modern audiences. Scholars trained to interpret religious texts in a

contemporary manner could promote non-violence and human rights by adopting a

contextualized approach to religious teaching. Mr. Abbadi noted that the preservation of

life was one of the main requirements of Islam. Scholars trained to understand the spirit and

finalities of religious texts could implement them through concrete actions in favour of

human rights. Mr. Abbadi explained that he had worked with children and scholars to

promote non-violence and to build their capacity in this regard.

29. In conclusion, Mr. Abbadi warned that violent extremists stood ready to intervene

with an ideology of fear and violence if people felt that their dreams or aspirations were not

being met. Religious and local leaders had an important role to play in countering that

dangerous narrative.

30. After the first round of statements by the panellists, the moderator highlighted the

need for States to recognize that preventing and countering violent extremism could lead to

human rights violations. She asked the panellists to discuss further how preventing and

countering violent extremism could best be reconciled with human rights obligations.

Ms. Ghanea agreed that preventing and countering violent extremism opened up a range of

actions that could violate human rights. Yet, that risk was present in many other policy

measures and the health of civil society was a good indicator of whether measures to

prevent and counter violent extremism were violating human rights. To play that role,

religious and social organizations had to be free to operate without discrimination.

Mr. Garatea highlighted the need for education and training to accompany programmes

aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism. This was essential to ensure that

related measures were effective while protecting and fulfilling human rights.

31. Regarding the Secretary-General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, the

moderator acknowledged that violent extremism took a myriad country-specific forms. She

asked Ms. Farooq and Mr. Abbadi to discuss steps a State should take when developing for

the first time a programme to prevent or counter violent extremism. Ms. Farooq pointed out

that some violent extremist groups were sending as many as 40,000 tweets per day. Any

direct response on behalf of the State was likely to pale in comparison. Efforts had to focus

on community awareness, including community education and civil society collaboration,

and it was the State’s role to foster such an environment. Research had shown that civil

society was already doing a lot in many regions and States did not need to reinvent the

wheel but merely bolster those efforts. According to Mr. Abbadi, it was important that

States consult human rights organizations when developing programmes to prevent and

counter violent extremism. They should also bring in specialized lawyers to frame measures

aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism in order to ensure compliance with

international law. Finally, States had to develop expertise in communication to create a

credible alternative to the narrative of violent extremists.

32. The moderator asked panellists to comment on the appropriate age at which children

should be engaged on the subject of violent extremism. Mr. Abbadi believed that such

engagement should start early but should not be in the form of a lecture. He added that it

was essential to collaborate with leaders in the entertainment industry in order to develop

films and games to foster a positive message. Ms. Farooq agreed that it was never too early

to engage children. The programmes of the World Organization for Resource Development

and Education focused on children as young as 10. Children of that age were already

exposed to risk factors, including bullying and intolerance. Many positive values could not

be taught, however, and an environment where children could experience such values and

learn for themselves had to be cultivated. Ms. Ghanea was also of the opinion that values

such as plurality, diversity and respect had to be taught to children at an early age.

Encouraging children to connect with diverse communities could give them a sense of

purpose, protecting them from feelings of disenfranchisement and injustice. Mr. Garatea

concurred and stated that a nurturing, diverse community was a civilizing force for a child

and should be encouraged.

IV. Summary of the interactive discussion with stakeholders

33. During the interactive discussion with stakeholders, contributions were made by

representatives of the following States on behalf of others: Albania (on behalf of the core

group on the resolution on countering violent extremism), Australia (on behalf of Mexico,

Indonesia, Republic of Korea and Turkey), Kuwait (on behalf of the Group of Arab States),

Morocco (on behalf of the Platform for Human Rights Education and Training), Norway

(on behalf of the Nordic countries) and Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic

Cooperation). The following States also made contributions: Australia, Austria, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Brazil, China, Croatia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic

of), Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian

Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey and

United States of America. Representatives of the European Union and the Council of

Europe also made contributions.

34. In addition, contributions were made by representatives of the following non-

governmental organizations: Article 19 (on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union,

CIVICUS — World Alliance for Citizen Participation, the Association for Progressive

Communications, the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, the International

Humanist and Ethical Union, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Inquiry, the

International Federation of Human Rights Leagues and the Asian Forum for Human Rights

and Development), Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l’homme (on behalf of

the Women’s Federation for World Peace International and Al-Hakim Foundation),

Americans for Human Rights and Democracy in Bahrain, Amnesty International,

Association Miraisme International, Global Network for Rights and Development and

World Jewish Congress.

A. General observations

35. Most participants expressed support for the Secretary-General’s Plan of Action to

Prevent Violent Extremism and welcomed the panel discussion. Some called for concerted

measures to be taken to prevent and counter violent extremism, including cooperation at the

international and regional levels to develop plans built on global experiences. Noting that

manifestations of violent extremism differed between regions, however, some States

thought that an international plan would be difficult to develop. While many States believed

that the United Nations should take the lead at the international level, others argued that

efforts should be handled nationally. One State noted that combating the global threat of

terrorism and violent extremism required joint efforts by the entire international

community, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of equality

and sovereignty of States and of non-interference in their internal affairs.

36. It was stressed that measures to prevent and counter violent extremism must strictly

adhere to the three-fold test of legality, proportionality and necessity, as outlined in the

Rabat Plan of Action. In addition, one State referred to the recommendations made in the

Rabat Plan of Action on mobilizing social media, the academic world and civil society to

combat intolerance. There was widespread agreement that measures to prevent and counter

violent extremism should be focused on human rights and the rule of law and that respect

for human rights and efforts to prevent and counter violent extremism were mutually

reinforcing. A number of States called for fundamental freedoms, such as freedoms of

expression, religion and peaceful assembly, to be respected. Measures to prevent and

counter violent extremism had to be developed within the bounds of existing international

obligations.

37. Several States expressed concern that human rights defenders, civil society

representatives and journalists were often targeted by violent extremists. They called for

efforts to be made to protect those individuals. Furthermore, the importance of human

rights training and education was highlighted. One State called on the Office of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to strengthen its relationship with the

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

38. It was pointed out that States had a responsibility to protect individuals within their

territory by addressing the root causes of violent extremism, not just by prosecuting violent

extremists. The swift and stern handling of violent acts could send a message of zero

tolerance, but a softer approach was also needed to counter the radicalization that led to

violent extremism.

B. Calls for a holistic approach

39. There was general agreement that, in order to be successful, policies to prevent and

counter violent extremism would require a holistic approach. A “security-only” strategy

would fail. Governments, civil society entities, the media and local communities had to

come together if conditions conducive to violent extremism were to be addressed.

Moreover, a number of government institutions, including the departments of education and

public health, had to work in a complementary manner. The different perspectives brought

by the panellists demonstrated that collaboration across disciplines was essential. That said,

civil society organizations cautioned against measures to counter violent extremism that

involved the media because they could also threaten the free flow of information online;

those organizations expressed serious concern about blocking access to the Internet,

targeting anonymity, weakening encryption and mounting pressure on private companies to

be complicit in government censorship and surveillance.

40. The importance of community resilience was raised by a number of States. Civil

society was called upon to become more involved in efforts to prevent and counter violent

extremism as part of a holistic approach. Several States described how they had engaged

community and religious leaders to foster tolerance and mutual respect. Others discussed

the role of social services in preventing and countering violent extremism. Civil society

participants stressed the need for human rights defenders to be included in the process. In

addition, the important role of economic development was emphasized, as was the

importance of social justice and harmony. One State referred to the Secretary-General’s

Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development6 and, in that context, highlighted the need to develop a peaceful society based

on good governance.

C. Defining violent extremism

41. There was general agreement that preventing and countering violent extremism were

pressing needs. One State stressed that victims of violent extremism deserved justice and

that the perpetrators of violent acts had to be held accountable. Some States and civil

society organizations expressed concern, however, that the absence of a definition of

“violent extremism” could lead to human rights violations and were of the view that

reaching agreement on a definition should be the first step. Legislation and policies to

prevent and counter violent extremism had already been used to quell political opposition in

several regions. Overly broad or vague definitions of what constituted “extremism” or

“violent extremism” could provide Governments with a tool of suppression, especially vis-

à-vis those who disagreed with State policies or wished to challenge them. The lack of a

definition could permit counter-terrorism programming to unduly expand and encroach on

civil liberties. There was a need at least for greater delineation between terrorism and

violent extremism.

42. States used the term “violent extremism” differently during the discussion, which

illustrates the definitional problem. Several delegates used the term interchangeably with

terrorism, whereas some characterized it as a root cause of terrorism and others believed

that violent extremism could lead to terrorism but only in certain circumstances. Among

those States that equated violent extremism with terrorism, one characterized violent

extremism in terms of Security Council resolution 2178 (2014). Through that lens,

measures to prevent and counter violent extremism were equivalent to those needed to

address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism outlined in pillar I of the United

Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.

43. States pointed out that the issue of the definition had been raised in a report by the

Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental

freedoms while countering terrorism.7 In an effort to help resolve the tension, some States

shared information on the definitions of violent extremism that they used. For example, one

State said that it understood violent extremism to be the beliefs and actions of people who

support violence to achieve political goals, which sometimes, but not always, included acts

of terrorism.

D. Role of human rights in preventing and countering violent extremism

44. Most States emphasized the role of human rights and democracy in preventing and

countering violent extremism. Some called upon States to adhere to their obligations under

international law. Upholding human rights and preventing and countering violent

extremism were mutually reinforcing. One could not be pursued successfully at the expense

of the other. The risk of violent extremism was higher in environments where human rights

were violated, governance was poor and economic opportunities were lacking. Measures

aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism had to be prescribed by law and be

proportional and necessary for achieving a legitimate aim. In that regard, the United

6 General Assembly resolution 70/1.

7 A/HRC/31/65.

Nations was requested to assess related measures critically against international norms to

minimize the risk of human rights violations.

45. Several States discussed the role that human rights education and training should

play in preventing and countering violent extremism. Such education and training included

instructions on how youth should respond to violent extremism online and how best to

rehabilitate and reintegrate violent extremists into society. Some States stressed that

education was key and called for the promotion of tolerance and mutual respect to be part

of national curricula. It was noted that the Human Rights Council, in its resolution 30/15,

had reaffirmed the important role of human rights education and training in preventing and

countering violent extremism. Civil society participants called for educational programmes

that focused on different religions and cultures as a way to promote tolerance and

understanding. It was widely agreed that education should feature prominently in efforts to

prevent and counter violent extremism.

46. Several States expressed concern that violent extremists used the Internet to promote

hatred and instigate violence. Some States insisted that there should be a response to that

threat. Others, however, warned that measures must take into consideration freedom of the

press, religion and expression, pointing to the danger that measures to prevent and counter

violent extremism could be used to silence dissent and political opposition.

47. A number of stakeholders highlighted the importance of the principle of non-

discrimination in the context of preventing and countering violent extremism. According to

one State, this required a paradigm shift in countries where security forces had traditionally

defended the State or particular groups when they should have protected the fundamental

freedoms and rights of everyone equally. As recognized in Human Rights Council

resolution 30/15, violent extremism could not and should not be associated with any

religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group. It is a global problem across national

borders, taking many forms and affecting multiple countries. Government policies that

stigmatized specific groups under the banner of preventing and countering violent

extremism were counterproductive. Even well-intended efforts to prevent and counter

violent extremism could ultimately alienate communities if broad generalizations were

made about its causes.

48. Several States expressed the view that violent extremists sought legitimacy from

ideas resulting from marginalization. Tough questions had to be asked to understand the

underlying drivers of violent extremism. Perceived injustices and the deprivation of rights

were widely considered to serve the growth of violent extremism. In addition, racial or

religious profiling should be rejected. Some States called for measures to combat

intolerance against Muslims and a civil society participant voiced concern at measures that

targeted Muslim communities. Another State urged the integration of youth and women

into programmes aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism.

V. Concluding remarks

49. In her concluding remarks, the moderator reiterated that human rights, the

rule of law and democracy were key to addressing the violent extremism affecting

many countries around the world. Although acts of violence cause great suffering,

States must uphold human rights when engaging in measures to prevent and counter

violent extremism. Such initiatives should take into consideration the needs of

communities and be tailored to their particular situations rather than be imposed in a

top-down manner.

50. The moderator asked the panellists to comment on whether they regarded

“violent extremism” and “terrorism” as identical. While noting that they were close

relatives, Mr. Garatea believed that they were not the same because violent extremism

often aimed at vengeance and breaking the status quo, whereas terrorism focused on

attacking the system as such. Ms. Farooq highlighted the difference between measures

to prevent or counter violent extremism and counter-terrorism: the former sought to

mitigate the risk factors of radicalization that could lead to violent extremism while

the latter focused on stopping individuals once they had been radicalized. Ms. Ghanea

thought that efforts to prevent and counter violent extremism needed to continue

despite the lack of an accepted definition; a working definition that was human rights-

centric would need to emerge, however, and any definition that was taken would have

to make a distinction between thoughts and actions, in line with articles 18 and 19 of

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mr. Abbadi also stressed the

distinction between action and thought, stressing the importance for States to

distinguish “extremism” from “violent extremism”. Furthermore, he emphasized the

role of capacity-building and training, including for police, military and security

officials, in order to put human rights front and centre in preventing and countering

violent extremism.

51. Asked about the best way of protecting the rights of journalists while

preventing and countering violent extremism, Ms. Ghanea noted that States had to

ensure rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and secure a

framework for the operation of independent media. In addition, States had to offer

protection against reprisals and provide redress to those journalists whose rights had

been violated.

52. The moderator acknowledged the tendency of violent extremism to be linked

with certain groups and religions. Ms. Farooq noted that many people became

radicalized owing to political grievances or economic conditions. Yet, even in

countries where people were very observant, religion was not necessarily the prime

motivator for violent extremism. She stressed that research was needed at the local

level to better understand the drivers of radicalization within each specific region.

53. Mr. Abbadi recommended that States focus on human rights education,

capacity-building and the training of trainers. Ms. Ghanea agreed with the view

expressed by several stakeholders that preventing and countering violent extremism

constituted a positive challenge for the international community in terms of creating

social cohesion within societies, fostering collaboration between international and

national actors and allowing the international community to pay attention not only to

the inter-State and State levels but also to the community level. Ms. Farooq urged

States to focus on understanding how best to operationalize a rights-centric approach

to preventing and countering violent extremism, noting that funding for civil society

organizations was limited and needed to be expanded, especially at the grass-roots

level. Mr. Garatea highlighted the role of women in preventing and countering violent

extremism.

54. Finally, the moderator recalled that the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights would prepare a report on best practices and lessons

learned on how protecting and promoting human rights contribute to preventing and

countering violent extremism (see A/HRC/33/29).