Jun 16, 2021 | Advocacy, News
Four years after the EU Directive on Combating Terrorism came into force, more effort is needed to ensure it is implemented in accordance with human rights law obligations, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the European Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) and the European Network against Racism (ENAR) said today. The organizations called for the European Commission’s review of the Directive’s implementation to prioritize scrutiny of its impact on human rights.
In assessing the value of the Directive on Combating Terrorism (Directive 2017/541) in the Member States, the European Commission must scrutinize how it has affected the human rights of victims, suspects, as well as the wider community and civil society, the organizations said.
The Directive, enacted in 2017 after an expedited legislative process, criminalizes a wide range of conduct related to terrorism. The Directive establishes an overly broad definition of terrorism and requires states to include in their criminal law offences that are often not closely linked to the perpetration of a terrorist act. These include offences of travel for the purpose of terrorism, participation in a terrorist group, and public provocation to commit acts of terrorism. Because the terms of the offences are so widely drawn, safeguards in national law and practice are essential to ensure that they are not applied where there is no clear link to a principal offence of terrorism and/or no intent to contribute to such a principal offence, to prevent arbitrary application, including action based on racial prejudices of perceived dangerousness.
However, the organizations are concerned that EU member states are applying national laws on counter-terrorism in ways that unnecessarily or disproportionately limit the exercise of human rights, including freedom of expression and association, and freedom of religion or belief, and that discriminate against some ethnic or religious groups, in particular Muslims.
The implementation of the Directive by member states is now being reviewed by the European Commission, including through a consultation process, which concludes today.
As the review of the Directive is taken forward, the organizations urge the European Commission to consider in particular:
- Whether and how the Directive can help to ensure effective accountability for internationally recognized crimes and the right to effective remedy and reparation for victims of terrorism, both within and outside of the EU;
- To what extent national authorities have applied international, EU, as well as domestic human rights law in their transposition and implementation of the Directive;
- What safeguards have been or should be introduced to prevent human rights violations in practice in the implementation of the Directive, in particular regarding freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, rights to respect for private and family life, freedom of religion or belief, freedom of movement and rights to political participation;
- How the right to a fair trial and the right to liberty are being upheld in the implementation of the Directive’s offences within the member states’ justice systems, and what measures are needed to strengthen protection for these rights;
- What safeguards have been or should be introduced to protect against the discriminatory application or impact of the Directive;
- Whether civil society, including those representing victims of terrorism and groups affected by counter-terrorism measures, have been meaningfully consulted in the implementation of the Directive.
Background
The EU Directive on Combating Terrorism (Directive 2017/541) came into force in April 2017 and was required to be transposed into member state law by September 2018.
The Commission is due to report to the European Parliament on the added value of the Directive, and whether it is fit for purpose, including on its impact on fundamental rights in October 2021.
Several of the NGOs have made submissions to the EU Consultation as part of its review.
The Fundamental Rights Agency is currently also working on a report on the impact of the EU Counter-terrorism Directive on human rights across the EU.
For further commentary on the Directive and on counter-terrorism and human rights in Europe, see:
ICJ, Counter-Terrorism and human rights in the courts: guidance for judges, prosecutors and lawyers on the application of EU Directive 2017/541 on Combatting Terrorism https://www.icj.org/eu-guidance-on-judicial-application-of-the-eu-counter-terrorism-directive/
ENAR, research on the impact of counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation policies and measures: https://www.enar-eu.org/ENAR-research-on-the-impact-of-counter-terrorism-and-counter-radicalisation
ECNL, Civic space in the era of securitized Covid-19 responses, https://ecnl.org/publications/civic-space-era-securitised-covid-19-responses
Download the statement here: EU combating directive statement_160621_ENG-2021
Jun 15, 2021 | Human Rights Council, News, Work with the UN
To the Permanent Representatives of Member and Observer States of the United Nations Human Rights Council,
Excellencies,
We, the undersigned Lebanese and international organizations, individuals, survivors, and families of the victims are writing to request your support in the establishment of an international, independent, and impartial investigative mission, such as a one-year fact-finding mission, into the Beirut port explosion of August 4, 2020. We urge you to support this initiative by adopting a resolution establishing such a mission at the Human Rights Council.
هذه الرسالة متاحة باللغة العربية أيضاً
On August 4, 2020, one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history decimated the port and damaged over half the city. The Beirut port explosion killed 217 people, including nationals of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Bangladesh, Philippines, Pakistan, the Netherlands, Canada, Germany, France, Australia, and the United States. It wounded 7,000 people, of whom 150 acquired a physical disability, caused untold psychological harm, and damaged 77,000 apartments, forcibly displacing over 300,000 people. At least three children between the ages of two and 15 lost their lives. Thirty-one children required hospitalization, 1,000 children were injured, and 80,000 children were left without a home. The explosion affected 163 public and private schools and rendered half of Beirut’s healthcare centers nonfunctional, and it impacted 56% of the private businesses in Beirut. According to the World Bank, the explosion caused an estimated US$3.8-4.6 billion in material damage.
The right to life is an inalienable and autonomous right, enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (article 6), which Lebanon ratified in 1972. The Human Rights Committee, which interprets the ICCPR, has stated that states must respect and ensure the right to life against deprivations caused by persons or entities, even if their conduct is not attributable to the state. The Committee further states that the deprivation of life involves an “intentional or otherwise foreseeable and preventable life-terminating harm or injury, caused by an act or omission.” States are required to enact a “protective legal framework which includes criminal prohibitions on all manifestations of violence…that are likely to result in a deprivation of life, such as intentional and negligent homicide.”
The facts as currently known suggest that the storage of more than 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate alongside other flammable or explosive materials, such as fireworks, in a poorly secured hangar in the middle of a busy commercial and residential area of a densely populated capital city likely created an unreasonable risk to life.
Since the explosion, a number of official documents were leaked to the press, including official correspondence and court documents that indicate customs, port, judicial, and government officials as well as military and security authorities had been warned about the dangerous stockpile of potentially explosive chemicals at the port on multiple occasions since 2013.
Further, the Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 36 on article 6 states: “The duty to protect by law the right to life also requires States parties to organize all State organs and governance structures through which public authority is exercised in a manner consistent with the need to respect and ensure the right to life, including by establishing by law adequate institutions and procedures for preventing deprivation of life, investigating and prosecuting potential cases of unlawful deprivation of life, meting out punishment and providing full reparation.” The investigations into violations of the right to life must be “independent, impartial, prompt, thorough, effective, credible, and transparent,” and they should explore “the legal responsibility of superior officials with regard to violations of the right to life committed by their subordinates.”
The impact and aftermath of the explosion also likely violated Lebanon’s international human rights obligations to guarantee the rights to education and to an adequate standard of living, including the rights to food, housing, health, and property. More notably, Lebanon can only uphold its obligation to provide effective remedy to the victims on the basis of a credible, effective, and impartial investigation whose findings would then be the basis for any effective remedy plan.
In August, 30 UN experts publicly laid out benchmarks, based on international human rights standards, for a credible inquiry into the August 4, 2020, blast at Beirut’s port, noting that it should be “protected from undue influence,” “integrate a gender lens,” “grant victims and their relatives effective access to the investigative process,” and “be given a strong and broad mandate to effectively probe any systemic failures of the Lebanese authorities.”
The domestic investigation into the Beirut blast has failed to meet those international standards. The ten months since the blast have been marked by the authorities’ obstruction, evasion, and delay. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Legal Action Worldwide, Legal Agenda, and the International Commission of Jurists have documented a range of procedural and systemic flaws in the domestic investigation that render it incapable of credibly delivering justice, including flagrant political interference, immunity for high-level political officials, lack of respect for fair trial standards, and due process violations.
Victims of the blast and their relatives have been vocal in calling for an international investigation, expressing their lack of faith in domestic mechanisms. They claim that the steps taken by the Lebanese authorities so far are wholly inadequate as they rely on flawed processes that are neither independent nor impartial. This raises serious concerns regarding the Lebanese authorities’ ability and willingness to guarantee victims’ rights to truth, justice, and remedy, considering the decades-long culture of impunity in the country and the scale of the tragedy.
As we approach the one-year anniversary of the explosion, the case for such an international investigation has only strengthened. The Human Rights Council has the opportunity to assist Lebanon to meet its human rights obligations by conducting an investigative or fact-finding mission into the blast to identify whether conduct by the state caused or contributed to the unlawful deaths, and what steps need to be taken to ensure an effective remedy to victims.
The independent investigative mission should identify human rights violations arising from the Lebanese state’s failure to protect the right to life, in particular whether there were:
- Failures in the obligation to protect the right to life that led to the explosion at Beirut’s port on August 4, 2020, including failures to ensure the safe storage or removal of a large quantity of highly combustible and potentially explosive material;
- Failures in the investigation of the blast that would constitute a violation of the right to remedy pursuant to the rights to life.
The independent investigative mission should report on the human rights violated by the explosion, failures by the Lebanese authorities, and make recommendations to Lebanon and the international community on steps that are needed both to remedy the violations and to ensure that these do not occur in the future.
The Beirut blast was not an isolated or idiosyncratic incident. In the weeks following the explosion, two fires broke out at the port in scenes reminiscent of the fire that resulted in the Beirut blast, terrorizing the public. In February 2021, a German firm tasked with removing tons of hazardous chemicals left in Beirut’s port for decades warned that what they found amounted to “a second Beirut bomb.” If these substances caught fire, Beirut would have been “wiped out”, the interim port chief said.
It is time for the Human Rights Council to step in, heeding the calls of the families of the victims and the Lebanese people for accountability, the rule of law, and protection of human rights. The Beirut blast was a tragedy of historic proportions, arising from failure to protect the most basic of rights – the right to life – and its impact will be felt for far longer than it takes to physically rebuild the city. The truth of what happened on August 4, 2020, is a cornerstone in redressing and rebuilding after the devastation of that day.
The thousands of individuals who have had their lives upended and the hundreds of thousands of individuals who have seen their capital city disfigured in a most irrevocable way deserve nothing less.
List of signatories:
Organizations:
Access Center for Human Rights (Wousoul)
Accountability Now
ALEF – Act for Human Rights
Amnesty International
Anti-Racism Movement
Arab NGO Network for Development
Arab Reform Initiative
Basmeh & Zeitooneh
Baytna
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
Centre d’accès pour les droits de l’homme (ACHR)
Committee of the Families of the Kidnapped and Disappeared in Lebanon
Dawlaty
Gherbal Initiative
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Helem
Human Life Foundation for Development and Relief (Yemen)
Human Rights Research League
Human Rights Solidarity (HRS)-Geneva
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF)
Impunity Watch
International Commission of Jurists
Justice and Equality for Lebanon
Justice for Lebanon
Khaddit Beirut
Kulluna Irada
Lebanese-Swiss Association
Legal Action Worldwide
Legal Agenda
Liqaa Teshrin
Mada Network
Media Association for Peace (MAP)
Meghterbin Mejtemiin (United Diaspora)
Mwatana for Human Rights
National Youth for Lebanon Movement
PAX (Netherlands)
Peace Track Initiative
Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED)
Refugees=Partners Project
Samir Kassir Foundation
SEEDS for Legal Initiatives
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression – SCM
The Alternative Press Syndicate Group
The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH)
The International Center for Transitional Justice
The Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH)
The Lebanese Diaspora Network (TLDN)
Tunisian League of Human Rights defense (LTDH)
UMAM Documentation & Research
Individuals:
Christophe Abi-Nassif – Lebanon Program Director, Middle East Institute
Nasser Saidi – President Nasser Saidi & Associates; Former Lebanese Minister of Economy & Industry
Randa Slim – Senior Fellow and Director of the Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program at the Middle East Institute
Survivors and Families of the Victims:
Alexandre Ibrahimcha, lost his mother Marion Hochar Ibrahimcha
Anthony, Chadia, Ava and Uma Naoum
Antoine Kassab, lost his father
Aya Arze Salloum
Carine Farran Sacy
Carine Tohme
Carine Zaatar
Carole Akiki
Cecilia and Pierre Assouad
Cedric el Adm, lost his sister
Charbel Moarbes
Charles Nehme, lost his father
Cybele Asmar lost her aunt Diane Dib
Fouad Rahme, lost his father
Georges Zaarour, lost his brother
Jean-Marc Matta
Jihad Nehme
Joanna Dagher Hayek
Karine Makhlouf, lost her mother
Karine Mattar
Laura Khoury
Lyna Comaty
Mireille el Khoury, lost her son
Myrna Mezher Helou, lost her mother
Nadine Khazen, lost her mother
Nicolas and Vera Fayad
Nicolas Dahan
Olga Kavran
Patrice Cannan, lost his brother
Patricia Haddad, lost her mother
Paul and Tracy Naggear, lost their daughter Alexandra Naggear
Reina Sfeir
Rénié Jreissati
Rima Malek
Rony Mecattaf
Sara Jaafar
Sarah Copland, lost her son Isaac Oehlers
Tania Daou Alam, lost her husband
Tony Najm, lost his mother
Vartan Papazian, lost his daughter-in-law
Vicky Zwein
Zeina Sfeir
Families of the following firefighters:
Charbel Hetty
Charbel Karam
Elie Khouzamy
Joe Akiki
Joe Andoun
Joe bou Saab
Joe Noun
Joseph Merhy
Joseph Roukoz
Misal Hawwa
Najib Hetty
Ralph Mellehy
Ramy Kaaky
Sahar Fares
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa programme, email: said.benarbia@icj.org phone number: +41 79 878 35 46
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer at the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa programme, email: Asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Jun 5, 2021 | Noticias
Las autoridades colombianas deben impedir de manera inmediata que los funcionarios encargados de hacer cumplir la ley utilicen fuerza excesiva en respuesta a las protestas. Además, deben retirar las funciones de mantenimiento del orden público que se les han asignado a las fuerzas militares, dijo hoy la CIJ.
Durante el transcurso de las actuales protestas, que se siguen en contra de las actuales condiciones sociales y culturales, múltiples organizaciones de derechos humanos y de la sociedad civil han documentado violaciones masivas a los derechos humanos, incluidos casos de tortura y malos tratos, violencia sexual, ejecuciones extrajudiciales y desaparición forzada.
“Los reportes de violencia y uso excesivo y, frecuentemente innecesario, de la fuerza por parte de los agentes encargados de hacer cumplir la ley, son parte de un fracaso más amplio de las autoridades de adoptar medidas efectivas para proteger y garantizar el derecho a la vida y el derecho a la protesta pacífica”, dijo Carolina Villadiego, Asesora Legal de la CIJ para América Latina.
Según Indepaz una organización no gubernamental local, al 30 de mayo de 2021, al menos 71 personas habían muerto, posiblemente de manera ilícita, en el marco de las protestas. La situación es particularmente grave en Cali. En esta ciudad, en un solo día, el 28 de mayo de 2021, fue reportado que al menos 13 personas murieron.
Adicionalmente, en Cali, se ha documentado que individuos armados hicieron disparos y usaron fuerza letal contra manifestantes, incluyendo a manifestantes pertenecientes a grupos étnicos. En al menos un incidente, múltiples videos muestran que oficiales de policía estuvieron presentes cuando particulares dispararon armas de fuego sin que hubieran tomado medidas para evitar los disparos o arrestar a los individuos armados.
“Las autoridades deben adelantar investigaciones prontas, exhaustivas e imparciales por estas violaciones, con miras a enjuiciar a los responsables de los hechos”, dijo Carolina Villadiego.
La CIJ también está profundamente preocupada con la militarización de varias regiones del país, como respuesta a la protesta. El 28 de mayo de 2021, el presidente Duque expidió el Decreto 575 de 2021.
Este Decreto autoriza la intervención de las fuerzas militares en al menos ocho de los treinta y dos departamentos del país con el fin de levantar los bloqueos de vías e impedir la instalación de nuevos bloqueos por partes de los manifestantes.
El Decreto omite incorporar limitaciones al uso de la fuerza por parte de las fuerzas militares, que es fundamental de acuerdo con estándares internacionales como los Principios Básicos sobre el Empleo de la Fuerza y de Armas de Fuego.
Adicionalmente, el Decreto establece un amplio margen de maniobra para las actuaciones de las fuerzas militares en actividades de mantenimiento del orden público en escenarios de protestas y manifestaciones. Lo anterior, a pesar de que estas fuerzas no han sido diseñadas ni entrenadas para proteger a los civiles o hacer labores de vigilancia durante las protestas o escenarios de alteración del orden público.
La CIJ urge a las autoridades colombianas a que den fiel cumplimiento a lo establecido en los Principios Básicos sobre el Empleo de la Fuerza y de Armas de Fuego y otros estándares internacionales relacionados con el uso de la fuerza y con la intervención de las fuerzas militares para el control de protestas y manifestaciones. En este tema, el gobierno debe dar fiel cumplimiento a lo establecido por la Corte Suprema de Justicia en su sentencia de septiembre de 2020 sobre medidas para garantizar la protesta pacífica.
En dicha sentencia, la Corte Suprema identificó serias violaciones en la intervención de agentes encargados de hacer cumplir la ley, especialmente la Policía Nacional, en las protestas y manifestaciones. La Corte identificó violencia sistemática contra los manifestantes, la existencia de estereotipos y prejuicios en contra de quienes han criticado las políticas del gobierno y una falta de mecanismos de rendición de cuentas de los funcionarios públicos.
En consecuencia, la Corte ordenó varias medidas para hacer frente a la situación y garantizar el derecho a la protesta pacífica. Entre estas medidas, la Corte ordenó la adopción de un protocolo para regular el uso de la fuerza durante las protestas, el cual debe estar en concordancia con los estándares internacionales en materia de derechos humanos.
La CIJ llama al Gobierno colombiano a garantizar el derecho a la protesta pacífica. De acuerdo con lo mencionado por el Comité de Derechos Humanos, el derecho a la protesta puede generar perturbaciones o bloqueos al movimiento peatonal o vehicular, que pueden dispersarse “por regla general, solo si la perturbación es “grave y sostenida””.
La CIJ también urge al Gobierno Nacional a cooperar completamente con la misión de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) que tendrá lugar entre el 8 de junio al 10 de junio de 2021. El Gobierno debe respetar y asegurar la independencia e imparcialidad de la CIDH durante la visita.
Finalmente, si bien la gran mayoría de los manifestantes han actuado de manera pacífica, han existido algunos incidentes violentos. La CIJ llama a todas las personas a evitar la violencia durante las protestas y condena los crímenes cometidos contra algunos oficiales de policía, incluyendo el homicidio de dos oficiales, las heridas graves que sufrió un oficial luego haber sido impactado por una bomba Molotov y el ataque sexual del cual fue víctima una oficial.
La CIJ también deplora que algunos bloqueos de las vías hayan afectado el suministro de servicios médicos esenciales y rechaza el incendio del Palacio de Justicia de Tuluá y de otros edificios públicos. Cualquier persona involucrada en acciones delictivas debe ser investigada por un órgano independiente, y de ser hallada culpable en un juicio imparcial, debe ser debidamente sancionada.
Contactos:
Carolina Villadiego Burbano, Asesora Legal para América Latina de la CIJ. Email: carolina.villadiego@icj.org
Rocío Quintero M, Asesora Legal para América Latina de la CIJ. Email: rocio.quintero@icj.org
