PRESS CONFERENCE BY SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON PROTECTING

 

HUMAN RIGHTS WHILE COUNTERING TERRORISM

 

In fighting terrorism, States should not suspend guarantees of freedom of assembly and association, but should instead place proportional limitations on them when absolutely necessary, Martin Scheinin, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon.

This morning, Mr. Scheinin presented his second report to the General Assembly through its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).  The report focused on the impact of counter-terrorism measures on those freedoms, as well as the issue of listing and de-listing of terrorist groups, he said.

“Although human rights treaties provide for the possibility of derogating from their obligations in times of emergency, there shouldn’t be a need to derogate from freedom of assembly and association because the scope of permissible limitations is sufficient for an effective fight against terrorism,” he said he told the Committee.

Responding to questions, he said that overly broad measures and overarching explanations for fighting terrorism were generally counterproductive in any case.  Such a perspective allowed practices that would otherwise be intolerable and diluted the fight against real terrorism.

He said that, in a human rights context, the best way to look at terrorism was not in an abstract sense, but instead as a set of crimes that could be prevented and prosecuted.

Concerning the listing and de-listing of groups, he said that his report emphasized that listing should be a temporary measure, in order that it did not turn into a criminal sanction, which would require conviction through the due process of law.

The lack of a definition of terrorism, which he covered in his first report, was particularly problematic when it came to rights of association and the listing of groups, Mr. Scheinin continued.  Without such a definition, Governments could label any groups they did not like as terrorists, including minority groups, indigenous peoples and movements of religion and autonomy.

Asked how Governments should draw the line between national security and human rights in regard to profiling, Mr. Scheinin said that, as a form of discrimination, ethnic profiling went against a basic tenet of human rights law.  In any case, it was ineffective because terrorists adapted to profiling assumptions, and it could breed more terrorism by alienating targeted groups.

Profiling as a preventive tactic could be effective, as well as in accordance with human rights treaties, if it focused on conduct rather than inborn characteristics of groups, he added.

Asked about other best practices he recommended, he said that the Council of Europe Convention had tackled the issue of incitement to terrorism by defining it as intent to cause terrorism plus the real risk of commission of terrorist acts, in that way limiting the threat to freedom of expression.

When asked about country visits he was trying to arrange, Mr. Scheinin said that a request to the United States was in its preliminary stages and had not yet received a direct response.  He could not make any pronouncements at this point about that country’s laws and practices in the fight against terrorism, but it was no secret that there was concern over them in many quarters.

His visits also had the goal of researching best practices that could be conveyed to other countries, he added, and the United States was a front-runner in action against terrorism, so there was much material to be looked at in that light.

He had so far made only one country visit –- to Turkey –- and had also made requests to visit Algeria, Egypt, Malaysia, Philippines, South Africa and Tunisia in the near future, he said.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record