Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Human Rights Law Blogs -> Never In Our Names

Human Rights Law

: Never In Our Names

Anti-terror tactics 'weaken law'

By possum

The International Commission of Jurists has released the findings of their three year study of international action to combat terrorism.

It concluded that many measures introduced to fight terrorism were illegal and counter-productive.

The panel of eminent lawyers and judges concluded that the framework of international law that existed before the 9/11 attacks on the US was robust and effective.  But now, it said, it was being actively undermined by many states and liberal democracies like the US and the UK.

The full text of the report may be found here (PDF).
In accordance with the worrisome thinking of many outside government

The report remarks upon the extent to which undemocratic regimes with poor human rights records have referred to counter-terror practices of countries like the US to justify their own abusive policies.

It said countries should use civilian legal systems to try suspects and "not resort to ad-hoc tribunals or military courts to try terror suspects".

This recommendation by respected international jurists should be heard by the Obama administration.  For many years our civilian court system dealt with criminals of various and sundry sorts.  There is not obvious reason to alter that course today.

It (the commission) found that many states have used the fear of terrorism to introduce measures which are illegal such as torture, detention without trial, and enforced disappearance.

The chairman of the panel spoke in harsh terms to describe the end result of seven long years of government activities against terrorism.

The result is a serious threat to the integrity of the international human rights legal framework.

From the report:

Some governments characterized terrorism as a military threat, and therefore one that required primarily a military response.  The violence may or may not have amounted to the level of an armed conflict, but the authorities chose often to treat the threat on an existential level: the armed forces were required to "defeat" or "eradicate" the terrorists if society itself were to survive.

Sound familiar to anyone?  Bushco fearmongering?

The experiences of Argentina and other countries of the Southern Cone are a forceful reminder of:

1. The dangers of existential war against a "demonised" enemy in which the end justifies the means.
2. The dangers of an approach that gives the military unfettered powers in internal security matters.
3. The dangers of combating an ideology rather than clearly described criminalised behavior.
4.  How easily human rights protection can become subordinated to an all-encompassing notion of national security.

The Commission ends with recommendations for all States:

1..  Counter-terrorism measures themselves must always be taken with strict regard to the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination.

2.  Governments must not interfere with the judicial process or undermine the integrity of judicial decisions, with which they must comply.

3.  States should apply and where necessary adapt criminal laws rather than create new, broadly defined offenses or resort to extreme administrative measures, especially those involving deprivation of liberty.

4.  States must not derogate rights which are non-derogable under treaty or customary law.

5.  States must preserve at all times and in all circumstances the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

6.  States may never detain any person secretly or incommunicado and must maintain a register of all detainees.

7.  States must ensure, at all times and in all circumstances, that alleged offenders are tried only by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law and that they are accorded full fair trial guarantees, including the presumption of innocence, the right to test evidence, rights of defence, especially the right to effective legal counsel, and the right of judicial appeal.

8.  All restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms must be necessary and appropriate.

9.  An independent authority should be empowered to monitor counter-terrorism measures.

10. States may not expel, return, transfer, or extradite a person suspected or convicted of acts of terrorism to a State where there is a real risk the person would be subjected to a serious violation of human rights.

11. During times of armed conflict States must apply and respect the rules and principles of both humanitarian international law and human rights law.

Peace.

Full post as published by Never In Our Names on February 17, 2009 (boomark / email).