|
Effective
Strategies for Protecting Human Rights,
2002, Aldershot: Ashgate.
189 See also 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
Art 6, 213 UNTS 221.
190 See Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, Chapter 5.
191 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Art 15, and ICCPR, Art 4.
192 In
Ireland v UK
(1978) 2 EHRR 25, although UK interrogation techniques violated the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Art 3, the court ruled that, due to the wave of
terrorist attacks prevalent in 1972, the UK could validly decide that its legislation was insufficient
under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Art 15.
193 1970 Haeue Convention,Art 6(3); 1971 Montreal Convention, Art 6(3); 1973 Internationally Protected
Persons Convention (the latter guaranteeing fair treatment), Arts 6(2) and 9; 1979 Hostages
Convention,Art 6(3), (4); 1998 Terrorist Bombings Convention (the latter guaranteeing fair treatment),
Arts 7(3) and 14; 2000 Terrorist Financing Convention, Art 9(3).
Chapter 2: Terrorism
47
bound to extradite if it has substantial grounds for believing that the request is a
guise for prosecution or punishment on account of a person’s race, religion,
nationality, ethnic origin or political opinion.
194
This is known as
‘clause francaise’,
and one of its purposes is to protect the concept of asylum. This clause has been
inserted in all subsequent international anti-terrorist treaties.
195
In general, there is
unanimous agreement from international bodies that procedural guarantees should
not be set aside when investigating terrorist-related offences.
196
States with particular terrorist problems, such as Turkey, Algeria and Russia, have
consistently argued that terrorism violates human rights. This, itself, is a contradictory
statement since the whole rationale of human rights is based on the State being the
transgressor and not private entities. To address these concerns, the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human
Rights in 1993 condemned terrorism as an act aiming at the ‘destruction’ of human
rights, democracy and territorial integrity.
197
This new terminology is hardly
reconcilable with human rights philosophy, and was sadly included on the insistence
of States with poor human rights records. The 1993 Vienna Declaration was followed
up by annual decisions of the Third Committee of the General Assembly, which
were subsequently endorsed by the Assembly under the title ‘Human Rights and
Terrorism’. These resolutions recognise the ‘destruction’ of human rights through
terrorist acts, ascertain its connection to organised crime and further demand for
measures consonant with ‘international human rights standards’.
198
The term
‘standards’ was preferred because most developing countries are not parties to the
major international human rights instruments. Sadly, States non-parties to customary
human rights treaties are allowed to regress back to an unacceptable state of affairs
where they not only defy international institutions accusing them of gross rights
violations; they also establish new ‘human rights’ regimes which entitle them to
abuse those whom they are under a customary obligation to protect.
199
The Third
Committee’s initiative to engage in an examination of terrorism has unofficially been
contested vehemently by the Sixth Committee, which has demanded without success
an end to the Third Committee’s involvement in the issue. Finally, the role of non-
State actors has been addressed by the special rapporteur on human rights and
terrorism, Kalliopi Koufa. In her 1999 report she noted that terrorism puts under
threat those social and political values that relate, either directly or indirectly, to the
full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely the areas of: (a)
life, liberty and dignity of the individual; (b) democratic society; and (c) social peace
and public order. While emphasising that terrorism prevents individuals from fully
194 1976 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, Art 5.
195 1979 Hostages Convention, Art 9(1); 1998 Terrorist Bombings Convention, Art 12; 2000 Terrorist
Financing Convention, Art 15.
196
Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on Terrorism and Human Rights,
OAS Doc
OEA/Ser L/V/II 116, Doc 5/Rev 1/Corr (22 October 2002).
197 UN Doc A/CONF 157/23 (12 July 1993), para 17.
198 GA Res 48/122 (20 December 1993); GA Res 49/185 (23 December 1994); GA Res 50/186 (22 December
1995); GA Res 51/210 (17 December 1996); GA Res 52/133 (27 February 1997); some CSCE/OSCE
Concluding Documents make a connection between terrorism and human rights, however, on the
basis of State sponsored terrorism. The latest 1999 Istanbul Summit, Chapter I(4), made reference
only to a ‘challenge to security’ emanating from terrorism.
199 This new terminology is also contained in GA Res 49/60 (9 December 1994).
International Criminal Law
48
enjoying human rights, and whereas recent developments in international law render
individual perpetrators liable under international law, the special rapporteur pointed
out that the ‘relevance and adequacy of international and human rights law with
regard to terrorist activities of non-State actors is questionable. For non-State actors
are not, strictly speaking, legally bound by the supervisory mechanisms of
international and human rights law’.
200
200 UN Doc E/CN 4/Sub 2/1999/27 (7 June 1999), paras 18, 56.
CHAPTER 3
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
