Skip to main content

Protecting Human Rights while Countering Terrorism

Letter to the United Nations Security Council on the Counter-Terrorism Committee

As you prepare for the Security Council debate this week on the revitalization of the Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) and the establishment of a permanent counter terrorism body within the United Nations, the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED), we want to draw a few matters to your attention.

Human Rights Watch sees terrorism as antithetical to core human rights values and thus applauds your efforts to stop it. We believe, however, that it is critically important that those efforts themselves respect international human rights and humanitarian law. We are glad to see in the CTC Report of February 19, 2004 (S/2004/124) that one of the tasks of the Assessment and Technical Assistance Office of the CTED will be to “liaise with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and other human rights organizations in matters related to counter-terrorism."

As you may be aware, Human Rights Watch has repeatedly raised concerns about the impact of counter terrorism measures on human rights worldwide. We have argued that the CTC, as the body overseeing the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1373 that requires governments to adopt very strict legal, financial, and criminal measures, has the responsibility to ensure that member states do so in conformity with their other international obligations, notably those under the international human rights and humanitarian law. We have been concerned by the CTC’s initial strong resistance to include any human rights concerns within its scope, which was manifested in repeated statements from its first Chairman and various Council member States that the CTC was not mandated to deal with the human rights dimension of the struggle against terrorism.

Security Council Resolution 1456 (2003) acknowledged this concern, requiring states to “ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law and should adopt such measures in compliance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.”

We feel that regular liaison with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on these issues is a first step in the right direction. This should of course extend to the human rights treaty bodies and special rapporteurs monitoring various aspects of these issues.

At the same time, however, the CTC needs to go beyond “liaison” and build its own capacity to actively follow the compliance with this important aspect of Resolution 1456. States should be required to describe what steps they take in order to fulfill these obligations, and specialized staff are needed to assess these steps. Liaising with the Office of the High Commissioner and other parts of the UN human rights system will not be enough. The CTC has a universal reach, whereas within the current UN human rights system, the issue is addressed by several special procedures in an ad hoc manner depending on individual mandates. The treaty bodies consider the issue mainly in connection with the State party reports which have been received and are due for review under the respective treaties. Thus, the number of States and issues considered on an annual basis is relatively low. Furthermore, the resources and ability of the different thematic mechanisms and treaty bodies is limited.

We also feel that the CTC should be able to provide member states with advice and technical assistance, to inform them of best practices, and ensure that member states draw fully upon the expertise of the United Nations human rights system in the context of combating terrorism.

As you set up this new permanent institution, therefore, we urge you to make sure that you include full-time human rights experts among the new staff positions that you will be creating.

Human Rights Watch also wishes to raise an additional concern about the appointment of the head of the CTED. Under the formula proposed by the report, the Executive Director would be appointed by the Secretary-General, subject to the approval of the Security Council. We strongly believe that a much more preferable arrangement would be nomination by the Secretary-General and appointment by the General Assembly, as is customary with other high-level UN posts. In this particular case, given the far-reaching powers of this body and the significant impact that its operations are likely to have in international law and practices, the participation of executive and representative bodies of the UN in the appointment process and the confirmation of the principle of separation of powers are essential. We therefore urge you to mandate that the Executive Director be nominated by the Secretary-General and appointed by the General Assembly.

We thank you for your kind consideration of these important matters.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Roth
Executive Director

Joanna Weschler
U.N. Advocacy Director

cc: Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

Region / Country