Authorities in eSwatini must avoid excessive force and ensure freedom of expression and association in public as well as online as the country faces ongoing protests, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today
The ICJ welcomes the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of B.B.W. and others v. the United Kingdom, setting out important guarantees against mass surveillance online.
On 25 May, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights issued its final ruling in this case in which the ICJ intervened. The case deals with the human rights implications of the system of intelligence mass surveillance of the United Kingdom, which was unveiled by the revelations of Edward Snowden.
“The judgment sets out clear guarantees to be respected in order to carry out bulk interception of communications”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme, “it is a first important step towards ensuring that protection of human rights is as effective online as it is offline. All Member States of the Council of Europe must now ensure that their surveillance systems respect these minimal guarantees.”
In its judgment, the Court recognised the difference between surveillance of individual communications and bulk interception of communications with the use of metadata and introduces a set of procedural guarantees to be respected at initial, intermediary and final stages of bulk data surveillance.
The Court found that these guarantees also apply when a State receives intelligence based on bulk interception carried out by foreign States.
The judgment, however, does not fully address the implications for human rights of States’ participation in close transnational surveillance cooperation such as the system of the “Five Eyes” including the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
“These transnational surveillance systems entail a higher level of responsibility by States under international human rights law in light of the high risk of bypassing national remedies”, said Massimo Frigo, “We hope the Court will be able to address these important issues in the future to strengthen the protection of human rights online in Europe.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41797499949, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
At a UN dialogue on counter-terrorism, the ICJ warned States and UN institutions against the use of overbroad and ill-defined concepts in the 7th revision of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, because they could breach the principle of legality and undermine protections under international human rights law.
The ICJ intervened today in the virtual two-day dialogue with human rights and civil society partners on the theme of “Building a Better Paradigm to Prevent and Counter Terrorism,” organised by the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) and the Permanent Mission of Spain to the United Nations.
The Dialogue brings together Member States, UN entities, human rights representatives, women groups, youth and civil society actors, as well as experts and other stakeholders for a practical exchange of views on how to address terrorism and violent extremism while safeguarding and promoting human rights, in particular the rights of women, children and victims of terrorism.
The ICJ Statement reads as follows:
“Madam Special Rapporteur, Your Excellencies, Colleagues,
Thank you very much for the organizing this consultation.
The International Commission of Jurists has been working for decades to ensure that counter-terrorism measures are compliant with, and do not lead to violations and abuses of human rights and the rule of law.
The ICJ has produced authoritative guidance, such as the ICJ Berlin Declaration on Upholding Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Combating Terrorism of 2004 and a four-year study concluded in 2009 by the ICJ Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, the result of 16 hearings across the globe.
That Panel concluded that the approach many States had taken in short-circuiting foundational rule of law and human rights principles caused “enduring long term harm.”
The ICJ has been insistent that countering terrorism and protecting human rights are important objectives that not only are not in conflict, but are part of a single shield of protection that States must provide for.
This finding is as valid today as it was then, as the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy itself recognizes that “when counter-terrorism efforts neglect the rule of law … and violate international law … they not only betray the values that they seek to uphold, but they may also further fuel violent extremism that can be conducive to terrorism.”
In this regard, we are concerned at the possible use in the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy of undefined concepts and terms, like “violent extremism”, “violent nationalism”, political concepts of “far right” and “far left” or “extremism”.
The abusive invocation of these terms carries risks for the protection of freedom of expression, freedom of religion and belief, freedom of association and the right to political participation, all protected under international human rights law.
Critically, from a rule of law perspective, legal certainty is a key principle of human rights law that informs the requirement that any legitimate restrictions of human rights including when countering terrorism must be prescribed by law.
Any undefined or widely defined concept of terrorism or extremism should not be promoted or applied in international instruments, standards or strategies, that, where incorporated into national laws and practice, would lead to violations of this international human rights law violations.
In this regard, we share the assessment by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism in her 2020 report to the UN Human Rights Council (A/HRC/43/46) and by the OHCHR in its Report on best practices on countering violent extremism (A/HRC/33/29, para. 19).
Concepts like “violent extremism”, nationalism, political opinions and other forms of religious, ethnic, or other belief or opinion, however extreme, cannot be part of the GCTS, as they are otherwise protected by international human rights law guarantees to protect the rights to freedoms of expression, religion or belief, and/or of association.
Furthermore, their insertion would water down the anti-terrorism focus of the strategy and lead the way to the application of very pervasive measures clearly restrictive of human rights for conduct that is not linked to terrorism.
The Global Strategy should focus exclusively on countering terrorism. Any more expansive approach will risk leading to measures in breach of human rights law and, therefore, of the founding values of the UN under article 2 of the Charter.
I thank you.”
(The ICJ Statement is at minute 2:48:21)
ICJStatement-OCTSpainVirtualDialogue-SessionI-final (download the statement)
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Today, the ICJ and ARTICLE 19 called on the UN Human Rights Council and its Advisory Committee to adopt a human rights-centred approach in their work on “negative effects of terrorism”, during a general debate on human rights bodies.
The joint statement reads as follows:
“Madam President,
The ICJ and ARTICLE 19 have followed the Advisory Committee’s ongoing work on the negative effects of terrorism on human rights and understand that it still finalizing its report on the topic.
We consider that the efforts of the Committee and this Council on this topic should focus exclusively on preventing and addressing human rights violations resulting from counterterrorism measures and promoting and protecting the human rights of victims of terrorism.
The Committee’s earlier report instead dedicated much space to the macro-economic effects of terrorism which do not lead to concrete recommendations to States on the human rights dimensions.
This focus proposed by some States diverts the longstanding focus of the Human Rights Council away from core human rights concerns and from States’ duties to prevent, protect, investigate, and redress human rights abuses.
The ICJ and ARTICLE 19 point out that the existing and longstanding normative and institutional framework on counterterrorism and human rights is already sufficient to address relevant impacts of terrorism from a human rights perspective.
We call on the Committee and the Council to bear this in mind as they continue their engagement on this important topic.
Thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
The ICJ issued a statement today on the occasion of an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism on the need for a human rights-based approach for countering terrorism.
The ICJ was not able to read the statement during the interactive dialogue due to the limited time provided for NGO statements.
The statement was as follows:
“Madam President,
The ICJ welcomes the attention given by the Special Rapporteur to the human rights impact of counterterrorism policies on the rights of women and girls and the need to incorporate a gender perspective into counter-terrorism policy and law in all areas (See, para. 39b, UN Doc. A/HRC/46/36).
We share the Special Rapporteur’s concern that the critical State obligation to promote economic, social and cultural rights should not be absorbed into a new, generalized, non-rights based category of “economic effects of terrorism (para. 37.) The emphasis must remain squarely on preventing and redressing violations and abuses against victims (para. 36).
We agree with the Special Rapporteur that human rights obligations and counterterrorism are directed at the State and that care must be taken to avoid the blurring of lines between counterterrorism and international humanitarian law (para. 39e). We concur that States must address the rule of law and human rights effects of misuse of sanctions and listing processes to target civil society and persons exercising rights protected by international law.
The ICJ therefore calls on the Council to maintain in this matter a human rights-based approach to victims of terrorism, as stressed by the Special Rapporteur.
Thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Palestine/Israel: Israel must immediately stop its criminal forcible displacement in Gaza
ICJ Submission on draft General Comment No. 27 on Children’s access to justice and effective remedy
HRC59: ICJ Statement in the interactive dialogue on the High Commissioner’s report on Venezuela – addressing arbitrary detention and repression of civic space
HRC59: Joint statement during interactive dialogue on Myanmar – addressing ongoing atrocity crimes and the collapse of judicial independence