Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON

1 June 2011

This afternoon the Human Rights Council held a panel discussion on the issue of human rights of the victims of terrorism with Anne Wu, Political Affairs Officer at the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office, Martin Scheinin, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Maite Pagazaurtundua, of the Victims of Terrorism Foundation, Rianne Letschert, Deputy Director of International Victimology Institute (INTERVICT), University of Tilburg, Netherlands, Mauro Miedico, Coordinator of the Specialized Terrorism Prevention Unit of the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Yakin Ertutk, Member of the Committee on the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe and former Special Rapporteur on violence against women.

In opening remarks Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that in 2008, the Secretary-General took the initiative to set up a ground-breaking initiative and convened a symposium on supporting victims of terrorism where for the first time victims of terrorism spoke about their experiences. At its heart it was about recognising the human rights of the victims, recognising their loss and providing the support they required. The recommendations from this initiative were practical, looking to make a real difference in victims’ lives.

In her presentation, Anne Wu, Political Affairs Officer at the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office, said the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy provided the strategic framework, policy guidance and action plan for collective counter-terrorism efforts, ranging from soft to hard measures. The strategy underlined that counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights were not conflicting goals, but complementary and mutually reinforcing. The Task Force had been mandated by the General Assembly to coordinate system-wide activities, including protecting human rights and supporting victims of terrorism.

Martin Scheinin, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, noted that a victims’ perspective was important in a comprehensive, holistic perspective to the role of human rights in counter terrorism. He said that the promotion and protection of human rights was an ingredient in the 2006 Global Counter Terrorism Strategy. Mr. Scheinin went on to say that the resolution establishing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur referred to acts of terrorism as the destruction of human rights and that all monitoring mechanisms for human rights were geared towards the State as the potential human rights violator.

Maite Pagazaurtundua, of the Victims of Terrorism Foundation, said that the United Nations had already taken steps to recognise the needs of other victims and she requested that steps be taken to address the needs of victims of terrorism, including the right to immediate and long-term assistance, the right to investigation into terrorist acts and prosecution of those responsible and the right to definite access to justice, among others. The foundation wished to see progress in the Human Rights Council in responding to the demands of the victims of terrorism and in developing new norms in the matter of human rights.

Rianne Letschert, Deputy Director of International Victimology Institute (INTERVICT), University of Tilburg, Netherlands, said that the fight against terrorism had received increased awareness due to worldwide large-scale terrorist acts, but only limited attention had been directed specifically to victims of terrorism. The policy response in most States had been limited to adjusting police tactics and criminal procedural laws for organized crime. International legal instruments were relatively abstract or included victims of terrorism under the broader heading of crime in general. An important question that merited further discussion was whether the existing instruments were sufficient to address the needs of victims of terrorism.

Mauro Miedico, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, noted that the primary mandate of his office as a terrorism prevention branch was to lend legal technical assistance to Member States in ratifying and implementing conventions and the most relevant Security Council resolutions. Mr. Miedico said that his office’s role was also to ensure a rule of law based response to terrorism and it had stepped up its efforts to supply technical assistance for capacity building in Member States for dealing with victims of terrorism. He also noted that UNODC had started the development of a specialized publication with a technical assistance tool to ensure that in Member States the issues of victims of terrorism were implemented in policies adopted by States

Yakin Erturk, Member of the Committee on the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe and former Special Rapporteur on violence against women, said that since 1997 and the launch of the war of terror, experts had argued that female victims had been sidelined in analyses of terrorism. Visiting countries as a Special Rapporteur, Ms. Erturk saw how women were caught between terrorist groups and State counter-terrorism measures. Governments had bartered the rights of victims, including women, homosexuals and other marginalized groups, in amnesty of terrorists in combating terrorism. Unless rights of victims of terrorism, particularly those of women, were addressed in a human rights context, not much progress could be made in this regard.

In the interactive discussion, the following countries spoke: Spain, Turkey, Colombia, India, Cuba, the European Union, Iran, Morocco, France, Algeria, the United States, Palestine on behalf of the Arab Group, Peru, Israel, the Council of Europe, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Austria, Pakistan, China, Switzerland, Afghanistan, Finland, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka and Iraq.

The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: the Fundación para la Libertad, Amnesty International, Rencontre Africaine de Défense pur les Droits de l’Homme (RADDHO) and the Al-Hakim Foundation.

In the ensuing discussion on the issue of the human rights of victims of terrorism, speakers welcomed the initiative to hold this panel discussion and welcomed the shift of the focus of the debate on terrorism from the perpetrators to the victims, which was a dimension often ignored. It was important to listen to the voices of victims and to recognise the issue of victims of terrorist acts as one in which more action was needed by the international community. Often forgotten, the victims should be a priority for State action. Terrorism constituted one of the most serious violations of principles of democracy, rule of law and universal values of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It was one of the most serious threats to human dignity and a very heavy burden to countries that suffered from it, especially developing countries. Political and security cooperation on regional and international levels was also needed to ensure the human rights of victims of terrorism.

Afghanistan will table a resolution during this session titled “Proclamation of 19th August as the International Day of Remembrance and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism".
The next meeting of the Council will be at 9 a.m. on Friday, 3 June 2011 when it will hold a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women.
Statements

SIHASAK PHUANGKETKEOW, President of the Human Rights Council, in his opening remarks to the panel discussion on the human rights of victims of terrorism, said that the panel was an opportunity for the Human Rights Council to increase the awareness on this issue while taking into account the recommendations of the 2008 Secretary-General’s Symposium on Supporting Victims of Terrorism. The panel discussion was being held pursuant to decision 16/116 of the Human Rights Council.

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, introducing the panel on human rights of victims of terrorism, said that there had been an increasing focus on terrorism, which was now expanding to victims of terrorism. But without this focus, the response of the international community to terrorism was incomplete. In 2008, the Secretary-General took the initiative to set up a ground-breaking initiative and convened a symposium on supporting victims of terrorism where for the first time victims of terrorism spoke about their experiences. At its heart it was about recognising the human rights of the victims, recognising their loss and providing the support they required. The recommendations from this initiative were practical, looking to make a real difference in victims’ lives and Ms. Pillay appreciated that the Human Rights Council sought to build on those recommendations. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had worked closely with partners in the context of the Counterterrorism Task Force and through its Working Group on victims it had brought the United Nations system to recognise the victims and their specific needs. The Special Procedures of the Council had worked tirelessly on issues of human rights in the context of countering terrorism and had also been focused on victims.

National legislation and policies relating to victims of terrorism varied a great deal; it was hoped that this discussion would enable States to share good practices and challenges in addressing the needs of victims of terrorism. The point of departure of designing polices to support the victims should be the human rights instruments, including the right to reparation. Terrorist acts caused a high number of direct and indirect victims, including family, friends and whole communities. Victims would require immediate assistance and long-term medical and psychological support, as well as financial support to help them overcome the loss of property, income and livelihoods. Victims should be given the possibility to freely express their opinions and experiences in any judicial procedures, and with full protection and in safety. Through access to remedies victims needed to be able to obtain the help, support and assistance they needed. Finally, States needed to put in place effective mechanisms to prevent future terrorist attacks against citizens, with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

ANNE WU, Political Affairs Officer at the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force Office, stated that terrorism hurt all nations and too often the human element of terrorism, including the killing of innocent civilians, emphasized the danger terrorism posed to human life, welfare and global stability. The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, unanimously adopted by the General Assembly, provided the strategic framework, policy guidance and action plan for collective counter-terrorism efforts, ranging from soft to hard measures. The strategy underlined that counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights were not conflicting goals, but complementary and mutually reinforcing. The Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force had been mandated by the General Assembly to coordinate system-wide activities, including protecting human rights and supporting victims of terrorism. The first-ever international symposium on Supporting Victims of Terrorism was convened to give the victims of terrorism a face. Victims came forward to speak, be treated with dignity and respect, have their rights respected and needs met. The Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force initiated a study of a compendium of best practices on supporting victims of terrorist crimes and related offenses as defined in national and international law. The Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force would organize a media training programme to help give victims a stronger voice in speaking the truth. The Charter of the United Nations clearly spelled out a collective objective: to save future generations from war and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights. Terrorism was a challenge to the most basic right, the right to life, and it was the collective responsibly of the international community to counter it.

MARTIN SCHEININ, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, noted that the mandate was about the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, not about the human rights of terrorists or the human rights of suspected terrorists, or alleged terrorists. The Special Rapporteur noted that a victims’ perspective was important in a comprehensive, holistic perspective to the role of human rights in counter terrorism. Regarding the 2006 Global Counter Terrorism Strategy the Special Rapporteur noted that the promotion and projection of human rights was both one pillar of the strategy and an ingredient in the other pillars. The Special Rapporteur noted that the resolution establishing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur referred to acts of terrorism as the destruction of human rights and that all monitoring mechanisms for human rights were geared towards the State as the potential human rights violator. Mr. Scheinin voiced his support for the creation of mechanisms for the effective implementation of human rights also in respect of non-State actors. The Special Rapporteur noted that this was a line that he had pursued, including promoting the idea of a World Court, the jurisdiction of which would not only comprise States but private actors as well.

The Special Rapporteur noted that the mandate was also a member of the Working Group on Supporting and Highlighting Victims of Terrorism within the Counter Terrorism Implementation Task Force. The Special Rapporteur noted that through these experiences he had become convinced that there was no contradiction between defending at the same time the human rights of victims of terrorism and the human rights of all persons. The Special Rapporteur said that the country missions allowed for some observation on good and bad practices concerning these issues. Mr. Scheinin went on to say that his final report to the Council (A/HRC/16/51) presented a compilation of best practices in countering terrorism and one of the ten areas of best practice in the compilation, practice number 6, was about the human rights of victims of terrorism. Mr. Scheinin noted that much of the work done in relation to promoting the human rights of victims of terrorism required their social rehabilitation through funds from the State budget. Much of the work done in the field of remedies for gross violations of human rights was applicable to terrorism. The Special Rapporteur noted that through country visits to Turkey and Peru he observed that effective collective and individual reparations programs were built by providing justice at the same time to victims of terrorism and victims of abusive counter-terrorism measures by State authorities.

MAITE PAGAZAURTUNDUA, Victims of Terrorism Foundation, said that she had been born in the Basque country and that her brother had been murdered eight years ago. The family he left behind were traumatised. Ms. Pagazaurtundua spoke on behalf of victims of terrorism in Spain and said that victims of terrorism did not have a specific place in the human rights machinery of the United Nations. The foundation was peaceful in its work and respected the rule of law and it was aware of the work brought forward by the Special Rapporteur on human rights and terrorism, and requested that the Human Rights Council be given the necessary instruments to achieve the goal of meeting the specific needs of victims of terrorism. Since the Vienna Conference of 1993, it had been proclaimed that acts of terrorism in all their forms were a threat to human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy. International law had acknowledged criminal the responsibility of individuals for especially egregious human rights crimes. The crime of terrorism was particular in the sense that it blackmailed sections of society in an attempt to gain recognition through violence.

The United Nations had already taken steps to recognise the needs of other victims and the foundation therefore requested that steps be taken to address the needs of victims of terrorism, including the right to immediate and long-term assistance, the right to investigation into terrorist acts and prosecution of those responsible, the right to definite access to justice and others. The foundation wished to see progress on the side of the Human Rights Council in responding to the demands of the victims of terrorism and in developing new norms in the matter of human rights. In particular, the Council should take a number of actions, including the follow-up on the conclusions of this panel discussion, and promote a resolution that would include attention to human rights of the victims of terrorism in the works and mechanisms of the Human Rights Council and the United Nations system.

RIANNE LETSCHERT, Deputy Director of International Victimology Institute (INTERVICT), University of Tilburg, Netherlands, said that the fight against terrorism had received increased awareness due to worldwide large-scale terrorist acts, but only limited attention had been directed specifically to victims of terrorism. The policy response in most States had been limited to adjusting police tactics and criminal procedural laws for organized crime. International legal instruments were relatively abstract or included victims of terrorism under the broader heading of crime in general. An important question that merited further discussion was whether the existing instruments were sufficient to address the needs of victims of terrorism. A study undertaken by research groups for the European Union concluded that it was safe to say that the needs of victims of terrorism did not differ much from victims of other crime. However, that did not imply that additional complexities arose in addressing the needs of victims in the context of terrorism. The study showed that compensation could be different in degree and meaning. Societal acknowledgement and psycho-social assistance structures were important considerations for developing compensation schemes and should be given special consideration.

With regard to access to justice and administration of justice, special focus should be put on participatory rights for victims of terrorism and providing legal aid, particularly as it concerned the complicated issue of cross-border terrorism. Recommendations called on States to launch criminal investigations but also to consider independent inquiries in order to provide full public disclosure. Other reparative measures, such as commemorations and tributes and the recognition that terrorism had an effect on the community as a whole were important measures, particularly in preventing backlash attacks. Adequate information strategies were needed to minimize undue apprehension, fears and social stigmatization. Ms. Letschert recommended the Human Rights Council study the recommendations to present a comprehensive set of provisions for the re-humanization of victims of terrorism.

MAURO MIEDICO, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, noted that its primary mandate as a terrorism prevention branch was to lend legal technical assistance to Member States in ratifying and implementing conventions and the most relevant Security Council resolutions. Mr. Miedico noted that his office’s role was also to ensure a rule of law based response to terrorism. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) noted that it had based its work on the efforts and the achievements of the office in its assistance to victims of crimes. Mr. Miedico noted that pursuant to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 64/168 it had stepped up its efforts to supply technical assistance for capacity building in Member States for dealing with victims of terrorism. He also noted that UNODC had started the development of a specialized publication with a technical assistance tool to ensure that in Member States the issues of victims of terrorism were implemented in policies adopted by States. The UNODC was determined to collect good practices in the area of support to victims of terrorism from all over the world to draw up best practices to ensure comprehensive criminal justice responses to victims of terrorism.

Mr. Miedico noted that the process had brought it to finalizing a technical assistance tool based on 2 expert group meetings. The structure of the publication was based on the three main areas of analysis of international and regional standards and norms: incorporating the rights of victims of terrorism in the criminal justice system, protection during criminal proceedings and access to justice. The publication provided a comprehensive overview of national and regional experiences. Mr. Miedico noted that the experts had particularly underlined the need and relevance of tailoring assistance within the criminal justice system to make sure that victims’ voices were at the centre of the criminal justice response. The publication would be launched at an event in New York.

YAKIN ERTURK, Member of the Committee on the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe and former Special Rapporteur on violence against women, said she took a broad understanding of victimhood in terrorism. Ms. Erturk placed the rights bearer at the center of analysis, instead of the perpetrator, which challenged male-centered theories of terrorism and reinforced attention to non-State actors as participants in the development and exercise of human rights law. Ms. Erturk emphasized that United Nations declarations and resolutions opened up a broad agenda and discussion that paved the way for experts looking at terrorism and gender. Since 1997 and the launch of the war of terror, experts had argued that female victims had been sidelined in analyses of terrorism. Visiting countries as a Special Rapporteur, Ms. Erturk saw how women were caught between terrorist groups and State counter-terrorism measures. Governments had bartered the rights of victims, including women, homosexuals and other marginalized groups, in amnesty of terrorists in combating terrorism.

Gender stereotyping, for example in relation to the headscarf, had been employed for combating terrorism and women’s demands were marginalized for the common good. Since 9/11, terrorism had been framed in the context of religion, although States had been careful to distinguish between good and bad Muslims. New concepts and models of governance had been put forward, particularly in the Middle East. This privileged religious discourse, emasculated visions of gender, overlooked pluralism and contestation and dissent in religion reduced women to having no agency of their own. Selective approaches to women, in terms of victimhood, had become more harmful to women’s rights issues than positive. Unless rights of victims of terrorism, particularly those of women, were addressed in a human rights context, not much progress could be made in this regard. International and regional instruments had potential to promote women’s rights issues.

Interactive Dialogue

In the ensuing discussion on the issue of the human rights of victims of terrorism, speakers welcomed the initiative to hold this panel discussion and welcomed the shift of the focus of the debate on terrorism from the perpetrators to the victims, which was a dimension often ignored. It was important to listen to the voices of victims and to recognise the issue of victims of terrorist acts as one in which more action was needed by the international community. Often forgotten, the victims should be a priority for State action. Terrorism constituted one of the most serious violations of principles of democracy, rule of law and universal values of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It was one of the most serious threats to human dignity and a very heavy burden to countries that suffered from it, especially developing countries. Political and security cooperation on regional and international levels was also needed to ensure the human rights of victims of terrorism.

Countries suggested a number of possible actions to undertake to address the human rights of victims of terrorism, including identification of a catalogue of rights and needs of victims of terrorism, to be included in the efforts of States; focusing on actions considered basics, such as assistance in the criminal process, right to justice, truth and memory, and the enlargement of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism. A number of speakers noted the importance of giving voice to the victims of terrorism, the creation of associations of victims to support and assist them, to raise awareness about the plight of the victims and their families, and to promote peace and reconciliation. In fact, the panel today was an important opportunity to learn from those who had been working intensely on those issues. Speakers recognised that setting of standards was not enough and that the real challenge was to ensure their effective implementation.

Speakers also reiterated that terrorism violated human rights and international commitments. Delegations indicated that terrorism remained a national security priority and addressing the pressing threat of terrorism constituted a way of promoting stability and security as well as the rights of citizens. Some countries expressed the willingness to join international initiatives that took into account the protection of human rights and, in particular, the rights of victims and their families. Delegations warned against counterterrorist practices that violated the rule of law and human rights, including preventing collateral damage, torture and other forms of violence.

Focusing on the victims of terrorism was important in order to improve awareness and understanding of the effects of terrorism on human rights. Victims’ perspectives should be heard and integrated into counterterrorism strategies as they played an important part in de-legitimizing terrorism and ensuring justice; in this regard, States should take into account best practices and learn from previous experiences. States could deliver justice by upholding the rule of law and allowing victims to see perpetrators held to account. Witnesses should be afforded protection and support and delegations mentioned examples of legislation created to protect witnesses, including measures for restitution. Domestic initiatives should address issues of reparations, including material, legal and psychological assistance, and to facilitate victims’ reintegration into society. Similarly, it was necessary to identify best efforts and measures to be taken by the international community. In this regard, the contribution of victims and survivors through organisations such as the Global Survivors Network was welcomed. Delegations noted existing United Nations measures promoting international solidarity with the victims, including their families, facilitating the return to normalcy after a terrorist attack.

Counterterrorism measures and upholding human rights were not conflicting goals, but mutually reinforcing. It was important to address root causes, including social issues such as inequality. In counterterrorism strategies, supporting victims was of great importance, in particular within the framework of human rights, and delegations stressed the importance of the work done by the Counter Terrorism Implementation Task Force Working Group on supporting and highlighting victims of terrorism. It was important to recognise that terrorism knew no religious, ethnic or geographic boundaries. For this reason, a holistic approach was necessary to understand terrorism on the basis of a dialogue between civilisations rather than on specific countries or conflicts.

Concluding Remarks from Panellists

ANNE WU, Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, in closing remarks, said she appreciated the dynamic discussion today and the recognition by the delegations that the debate had shifted from perpetrators to victims. The work of the Task Force had benefited a lot from the support of a number of Governments, including Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and others. Concerning the question on how States could help in raising awareness of the rights of victims, Ms. Wu said that States could build in-depth knowledge and strategy, or as recommended by the 2008 Symposium, they could improve media coverage for victims and give victims a voice.

MARTIN SCHEININ, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, in concluding observations, said he was very pleased with the efforts to give voice to victims of terrorism and that the broader link to human rights was recognised. There was a need for understanding the human rights of victims in the context of the global promotion and protection of human rights. On the question of how victims of terrorism differed from victims of crime, the Special Rapporteur said that terrorism was a political crime, which instead of being based on the greed of the perpetrator, was closely related to the political situation in the world or in a country. That was why there was a need for special attention which would not fall under the framework of doing the justice for the victims as such. The Human Rights Council should not be micromanaging or carefully tasking the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, but it would be useful if the Special Rapporteur would devote a thematic report to this specific theme and in this report come up with recommendations to the Council and Governments on what else they could do to promote the human rights of victims of terrorism. In conclusion, Mr. Scheinin said he was a bit disappointed by the weak response of the Council to the recommendations provided to it during the course of his mandate.

MAITE PAGAZAURTUNDUA, Victims of Terrorism Foundation, in concluding observations, said that the damage caused by terrorists was both public and private in nature. She noted that when terrorists could multiply victims they did so. She noted that this created terror and fear and small numbers of victims could be used to multiply the effect. She also noted that a public mourning and a private mourning took place in these situations. In a democratic society, confronting terrorism and its effects was a job for everyone and fanatical ideas allowed other ideas to be generated.

RIANNE M. LETSCHERT, Professor of International Law and Victimology & Deputy Director of the Victimology Institute Tilburg, Netherlands, noted that what she had heard from many of the delegations was the need for concrete recommendations on how to follow up with the Special Rapporteur’s reports. She noted that the voluntary funds mentioned in the report of 2008 of the the Secretary-General were important for victims. She noted that many state compensation schemes had very strict criteria for assistance and that many victims could not benefit because they were unable to meet these criteria. She noted that Member States should consider something to address this problem. She encouraged member states to quickly set up the voluntary fund mentioned in the 2008 report of the Secretary-General in order to meet the needs of victims.

MAURO MIEDICO, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, in closing remarks said that he had been listening to the discussion with much attention and he appreciated the support of the work of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. A number of representatives noted the need for a compilation of good practices and guidelines and this was another confirmation of the value of previous work done by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Concerning the question of the difference between victims of terrorism and victims of crime, Mr. Miedico said that in practice, many legislations took concepts applicable to criminal justice and applied them to victims of terrorism; in other cases however there was a need to come up with new tools, instruments and mechanisms to address that specific situation.

YAKIN ERTURK, Member of the Committee on the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe and former Special Rapporteur on violence against women, in her concluding remarks said there was a need to make a distinction between random and targeted victimisation, as those would require different remedies to address them. As a former Special Rapporteur on this Council, Ms. Erturk agreed with Mr. Scheinin aid that Special Procedures were very powerful tools of the Council and needed to be harnessed better and instead of constantly creating new mandates the Council could consider strengthening and better supporting the existing ones.