Strategies for Protecting Human Rights from Record Examination of the UN in Action on Terrorism - Essay Example

?What do we learn about international strategies for protecting human rights from an examination of the record of the UN in action on Terrorism? Table of Contents 1.Introduction 3 2.Definition of terrorism (UN Economic and Social Council, 28 Dec 2005) 4 3.Economic, social and cultural rights in countering terrorism (Security Council resolution 1566, 2004) 5 4.Fair trial guarantees while countering terrorism (UN General Assembly, 6 Aug 2008) 8 There are several ways that have been identified by the Special Rapporteur by which the right to a fair hearing is abridged (UN General Assembly, 6 Aug 2008). These include: 8 5.Freedom of association and peaceful assembly (UN General Assembly, 16 Aug 2006) 9 6.Gender perspective on counter-terrorism (UN General Assembly. A/64/211, 3 August 2009) 10 7.Privacy and counter-terrorism (UNGA A/HRC/13/37, 28 December 2009). 12 8.Implications of the use of drones (UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 2012) 14 9.On torture and other cruel treatment (UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council. 1 Feb 2013) 17 10.Summary and Conclusion 18 References 20 1. Introduction The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 ushered a rise in terrorist activities worldwide (United Nations Action to Counter Terrorism, 2013). The UN and its member states unequivocally condemn the resort to terrorism for any purpose, and acknowledge that the States have a duty to protect its citizens and all who sojourn within their jurisdiction. Without diminishing this obligation, it is also the duty of the UN to protect human rights in the course of pursuing counter-terrorist activities. For this reason, the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy has been instituted. In the 2005 Madrid Summit, then UN Secretary-General echoed the unanimous observation of international rights experts, both within and outside the UN system, that counter-terrorism measures that have been adopted to that date have all infringed on human rights and fundamental freedoms in one way or another (Foot, 2007). It was therefore determined that in the course of pursuing the counter-terrorism effort, the protection of human rights must be assured. It is the official position of the UN and its member states that these twin pursuits – counter-terrorism and the protection of human rights – are deemed complementary and that they mutually reinforce each other’s goals. The UN has committed to pursue measures to halt the violation of human rights, and to adopt counter-terrorism measures which comply fully with the obligation to protect human rights (UNACT, 2013). The commitments provide assurances that the anti-terrorism effort shall be coupled with the observance of human rights, at least in principle. However, the robustness of this observance in practice should be ascertained by an examination of the records pertaining to the records of the committees of the UN Security Council, which are tasked with the implementation of counter-terrorist measures. In order to abide by this commitment to ensure that human rights are respected even and especially during the course of combatting terrorism, the post of Special Rapporteur was created in 2005. The Special Rapporteur shall be concerned with the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while undertaking counter-terrorist activities (UN General Assembly, 4 June 2012). Despite assurances in treaties and the expression of agreement in human rights conventions, there is grave concern, from accounts of victims and investigative journalism reports, that human rights are consistently being violated in the interest of stemming the rise in terrorist activities worldwide. On the one hand, the undue curtailment of human rights is a violation of the UN conventions to which member States are signatories, and should therefore be sanctions. On the other hand, fear of a repetition of attacks such as that of the World Trade Centre appears to justify this resort to violation of the rights of a few to obtain information and prevent the deaths of many. This research shall delve into the official records to determine if human rights are indeed being violated, and to what extent, as techniques employed in counter-terrorism. The reports filed by the Special Rapporteurs have been used as source material for this discussion on human rights and counter-terrorism. 2. Definition of terrorism (UN Economic and Social Council, 28 Dec 2005) The absence of a universal and comprehensive definition of terrorism is a hindrance to the effective protection of human rights. When the international community calls for measures to address terrorism without specifying the elements that comprise a situation classified as terrorism merely leads member States to devise their own definitions, which may lead to unintended, or even deliberate, human rights violations. In this particular report, the Special Rapporteur drew from four documents drawn in four different conventions on terrorism, which identified ‘triggers’ in determining the conduct classified as terrorist activities. From these he deemed terrorism to be best described as any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians, for the purpose of intimidating a population or to coerce a government or international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act (Security Council resolution 1566, 2004). The definition formulated by the High-level Panel, upon which this definition is based, is problematic because it additionally includes those actions already specified in previous conventions that treated on different aspects of terrorism. It will be recalled that these conventions have particular topics in mind, which may not pertain to the nature of terrorism per se. Thus, some trigger situations that are included in the Tokyo Convention are not really terrorist in nature. The solution therefore is to include the trigger situations in the different conventions, but only if they are qualified by the earlier definition on the comprehensive nature of terrorism (UN Economic and Social Council ..E/CN. 4/2006/98, 2005). 3. Economic, social and cultural rights in countering terrorism (Security Council resolution 1566, 2004) Some counter-terrorism measures undertaken in the past tended to impact negatively on the political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights of the people within the affected State. An example is the construction by Israel of a barrier surrounding the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT). The Special Rapporteur observed, during a visit to the occupied Palestinian territory, that the construction of the barrier built by Israel around and at times within the territory, correlated with a reduction in the successful number of successful terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. Nevertheless, the same had an immense negative impact on the Palestinians’ enjoyment of their human rights. A significant part of the OPT that were comprised by towns and villages, was separated by the barrier from the rest of the territory, creating considerable difficulties in the movement of residents of towns cut off by the barrier. Closures, systems of permits, delays at checkpoints, have caused significant inconvenience among Palestinians, including the emergency roadside delivery of babies to pregnant women travelling between destinations, and difficulty of students and teachers to move to and from centres of learning. Many individuals have been distanced from their areas of cultivation, and several children have stopped going to school because of the difficulty of going to school. In the United States, a similar situation has developed with regard to the curtailment of the enjoyment of personal property in the name of counter-terrorism. Laws were implemented against the financing of terrorism, as a result of which several charities, particularly Muslim charities, have been shut down due to lack of resources. While the legitimate Muslim organisations have sounded off the government on creating ‘safe’ charities through which economic activity could better prosper. Fearing that terrorist organisation may be poised to abuse any organisation flagged down as ‘safe,’ the US has not proceeded with the creation of the ‘safe’ list, preferring all people to undergo the same lengthy and bothersome procedure in going around the boundary. Another example of this sort of human rights violation is the closure of Al Barakaat, a private sector company and the main organization which undertook the transfer of money into Somalia. The United States put Al Barakaat on its terrorist list upon suspicion that it channelled funds to and from terrorist organisations, particularly Al-Qaida, but evidence has never been divulged to this effect. Although Al Barakaat was dropped from the terrorist list after just one year, its closure though temporary has destabilised the economy of Somalia as well as impacted negatively on the population who had not been able to receive their money from relatives (UN Economic and Social Council..E/CN.4/2006/98, 2005). It is ironic that counter-terrorism measures should impact negatively on the social-cultural-economic rights of innocent people, as this further exacerbates the conditions that give rise to popular support for terrorism. The importance of assuring the protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights in preventing terrorism cannot be over-emphasized. Conditions conducive to terrorism were found to include prolonged unresolved conflicts, violations of human rights, discrimination of all sorts particularly ethnic, national or religious, political exclusion, socio-economic marginalization, and lack or absence of good governance (UN Economic and Social Council..E/CN.4/2006/98, 2005). It is likely, though not as yet empirically proven, that economic and social grievances and educational exclusion can be fertile recruitment or breeding grounds for terrorists (Schmid, 2007). Thus, as part of the counter-terrorism strategy, the Member States agreed to adopt measures to address conditions conducive to terrorism including: (1) realization of the development goals and objectives arrived at in UN summits and conferences, such as the Millennium Development Goals; (2) elimination of poverty and promotion of economic growth and sustainable development for all peoples and nations; (3) pursuit of development and social inclusion agenda, particularly youth unemployment, to reduce marginalisation and the sense of being victimized that prompts the youth to join terrorist groups; and (4) scale-up cooperation and assistance in the areas of rule of law, human rights and good governance in a manner that contributes to long-term economic and social development (UN General Assembly, 4 June 2012). These positive measures are to be encouraged and intensified because they provide the long-term solutions necessary to render the terrorism movements eventually irrelevant. If there are no victims of oppression, whether perceived or real, then there will be no motivation to adopt violent ideologies. 4. Fair trial guarantees while countering terrorism (UN General Assembly, 6 Aug 2008) One of the fundamental guarantees of human rights and the rule of law is the right to be notified of the charges against him and the right to be heard, and is guaranteed under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The provision guarantees all individuals the right to equal treatment in a fair and public hearing by an independent, competent, and impartial tribunal. The right to a fair trial is often linked to the enjoyment of other rights such as the right to life and to be secure in one’s property, which only heightens its importance. That being said, the Special Rapporteur has noted that repeated violations of the right to a free trial had taken place, particularly in the fight against terrorism. Furthermore, Article 14 is not relevant in certain kinds of proceedings including extradition, expulsion or deportation procedures. There are several ways that have been identified by the Special Rapporteur by which the right to a fair hearing is abridged (UN General Assembly, 6 Aug 2008). These include: (1) Precluding or limiting recourse to an independent judiciary and by granting broad powers to the executive in consideration thereof. Usually there is the suspension of the enjoyment of the writ of habeas corpus or the writ of amparo, and the establishment of an internal review and appeal mechanism of an administrative rather than a judicial nature. (2) Precluding or limiting recourse to the appeals process, where an individual is guaranteed the right to contest one’s conviction in the lower court, and where he is entitled to a review of the facts. A speedy appeal and review proceeding would allow the accused the chance for a speedy and effective remedy. (3) The practice of listing and delisting persons and groups as terrorists or their associates. The listing procedure has the effect of enabling the government to freeze the assets and accounts of the suspected terrorist, thereby limiting the accused to obtain the best possible counsel or secure the best possible information gathering to support his case. Furthermore, individuals on the list of suspected terrorists are compromised in their due process rights. The UN does not provide for an independent review of terrorist listings; therefore, one on the list would already be subject in effect to instantaneous punishment in the form of freezing of financial resources without an appeals process to get de-listed. (4) Resort to military tribunals rather than civil courts is made in many countries. The allocation of terrorist cases to the military or special courts, an occurrence which may be deemed a violation of Article 14. The military and special courts are oftentimes under the executive rather than judiciary, bringing into question the impartiality of the tribunal. Fair trial guarantees are noted to be lower in military and special courts, working to the disadvantage of the accused and in violation of the right to a fair trial. 5. Freedom of association and peaceful assembly (UN General Assembly, 16 Aug 2006) The protection for the rights of association and peaceful assembly are guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the ICCPR. These twin guarantees are important because they are the foundation for the enjoyment of other rights – i.e., the right to free speech, cultural rights, and the rights to political participation. At the same time, the State has an obligation to protect individuals within its jurisdiction from violence, and in particular the violence associated with a terrorist attack. The State must therefore balance its obligation to protect people’s right of association and peaceful assembly, with its needs to pre-empt suspected terrorist activities which will also be meeting in the guise of peaceful assemblies. Because of this dual nature of the State’s obligations to the public, it is therefore allowed that in extreme situations where the danger of terrorist activities is high, the State may suspend or limit the exercise of the freedom of assembly, as a preventive measure to prevent the escalation of terrorism. In other words, derogation (i.e., exemption or relaxation from rule of law) from the rights to freedom of association and of peaceful assembly are allowed in times of emergency and during extreme circumstances when acts of terrorism are imminent (UNHRC, 1999). In limiting or suspending temporarily the enjoyment of this right, States have tended to abuse this right. For instance, the prevention of terrorism in its preparatory stages is an extremely effective counter-terrorism tactic that has saved many lives by pre-empting the terrorist act before it may take place. The State therefore passes legislation criminalizing acts preparatory to terrorist activities, although they are not in themselves terrorist in nature. Some of these preparatory acts may be justifiably sanctioned because of their imminent relationship to the act of terror itself, such as the preparation of a bomb. However, there are other provisions which are unduly restrictive and unnecessary curtail the exercise of legitimate freedoms purportedly as a pre-emptive measure against acts of terrorism. For this reason, the law must establish clear safeguards to ensure that abuse of the discretion to limit certain freedoms does not take place. There are also occasions when the legal definition of what constitute terrorist groups may cover those who participate in peaceful actions for labour rights, minority rights or human rights, depending on the manner the national law is framed. This is clearly not contemplated by the right to derogate, since the terrorist act is not ordinarily contemplated in peaceful acts of assembly and expression of the redress of grievances and the protection of constitutional guarantees (Security Council resolution 1373, 2001). The limitation of the rights must be strictly interpreted to protect specific aims and purposes – national security, public order, public health and morals, and the rights and freedoms of others. 6. Gender perspective on counter-terrorism (UN General Assembly. A/64/211, 3 August 2009) In examining the gender implications of the adoption of counter terrorist measures, the term ‘gender’ is not exclusively associated with women, but with the shifting social constructs of men’s and women’s roles and functions in all aspects including gender identity and sexual orientation. International human rights law, (including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) requires the assurance by all Member States that they shall comply with the non-discriminatory and equality clauses and provisions. The Special Rapporteur recounts in his report how in Algeria, women were arrested and detained as potential terrorists because they reported that they had been the subjects of sexual violence and humiliation by armed Islamists. On the other hand, in Nepal a counter-insurgency initiative with terrorist implications involved attacks by both sides on meti or effeminate males and transgender individuals. It happened that Maoists were reported to be kidnapping meti, (UN Children’s Fund, Aug. 2007) a fact taken advantage of by the local police in the name of counter-terrorism to attack meti with the intention of ‘cleansing’ the Nepali society. Also, Amnesty International reported the degree by which women were targeted and victimized by all sides during counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist activities. Women and girls were raped by armed Islamist militants, Iraqi government forces, foreign soldiers, and even the employees of foreign private military security contractors. Perpetrators in these crimes had gone unpunished, and it is doubtful whether the government even cared to seek out the persons responsible for these crimes. In these cases, the victimization of women crossed lines of affiliation because the acts were performed by men of the various political agendas, and even those who had none because theirs was a commercial agenda. The crimes were gender-based, more acts of discrimination and the assertion of power rather than any cause or advocacy. Episodes of militarized conflict also have the predictable impact of disproportionately displacing women and children who comprise the majority of the affected population. The Special Rapporteur has specified in his report that in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, armed insurgency, militarization and terrorism have created a security situation that obstructs the delivery of even basic humanitarian assistance, with the more extreme effects impacting upon the plight of women (Women for Women International, 2008). 7. Privacy and counter-terrorism (UNGA A/HRC/13/37, 28 December 2009). The right to privacy is guaranteed in nearly all constitutions and all international human rights treaties; it pertains to ‘the presumption that individuals should have an area of autonomous development, interaction and liberty’ (UNGA A/HRC/13/37, 28 December 2009, p. 5). It enables an individual to enjoy a ‘private sphere’ free from State intervention as well as excessive unsolicited intervention by uninvited individuals. It is founded on the principle of respect for individuals’ private and family life, home, and correspondence, as well as that individual’s right to have his/her dignity, personal integrity, and good reputation recognized and respected (UNGA A/HRC/13/37, 28 December 2009, p. 6). The right to privacy is enshrined in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the most legally binding treaty provision of this right at the international level. However, the right to privacy is not absolute, and derogation is allowed by Article 4 of the Covenant, during a state of emergency, such as an act of terrorism, that threatens the life of the nation, subject to several conditions. While the provisions in the ICCPR require that the grounds for derogation be specifically stated, the Special Rapporteur noted in his investigation that since the Covenant entered into force in 1976, less than ten states have specified a state of emergency, but in a general sense that lacked the specificity required by Article 4 of the Covenant. Eight other states had not referred to terrorism explicitly. The report concluded that in no case was the requirements specified in Article 4 complied with during derogations on the basis of counter-terrorism (UNGA A/HRC/13/37, 28 December 2009, p. 8). The absence of any strong debate despite the loose application indicates that the Member States are relatively agreed on the flexibility with which the provision is stated. Article 17 provides a more generic criteria for the prohibition of interference with privacy, although a more restrictive test is indicated in Article 21 and Article 22 (3), providing for three requisite elements: (1) restrictions must be prescribed by national law; (2) they must be necessary in a democratic society; and (3) they must serve one of the legitimate aims enumerated in each of the provision containing a limitation clause (UNGA A/HRC/13/37, 28 December 2009, p. 5). Therefore, in construing the three articles together, it is the more restrictive provisions of Articles 21 and 22 should be considered included in Article 17 in order to avoid any contradiction in the provisions. Thus, derogation of the right to privacy must be governed by the more stringent elements of the permissible limitations test. Counter-terrorism policies often provide justification for States to argue that privacy protection should give way to the greater interest of the preservation of peace and defense of the State. States claim firstly that they are able to investigate and prevent terrorist acts only if their powers of surveillance are increased. For this reason, the heightened interest in counter-terrorism has been primarily one of improving the range, intensity, and capacity of surveillance capabilities. Another direction taken by the States is that terrorism is a global phenomenon, and therefore the search for terrorists must be capable of reaching beyond the national borders, with the assistance and collaboration of third parties with databases that contain extensive information on individuals, in the hope of being able to identify and monitor terrorist suspects. There are a number of concerns that impede on the enjoyment of the right to privacy. One is the monitoring of private conversations through electronic means such as the use of bugs and eavesdropping devices, and the tracking and recording of cross-border conversations without judicial authorization (UNGA A/HRC/13/37, 28 December 2009, p. 10). There has also been a general expansion of States’ exercise of stop and search powers, the use of profiling to identify suspects, the tracing and accumulation of financial, communication and travel data, the social network posts, emails and internet navigation one conducts, and also the truly high technology strategies such as the use of biometrics and body scanners to see beneath clothing, and centralized identity systems (UNGA A/HRC/13/37, 28 December 2009, p. 10). 8. Implications of the use of drones (UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 2012) A statement was issued by Ben Emmerson, the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights. The report was issued in response to the joint statement of the Human Rights Council in Geneva requesting the Special Rapporteur to conduct an investigation into the use of drones in counter-terrorism operations. Emmerson responded that the States who use the drone technology and the States in whose territory they are used are obligated under international law to conduct independent and impartial investigations into any drone attack where civilian casualties may have probably been sustained. Emmerson added that if the States failed to conduct robust and impartial investigations, then the UN as a final resort may conduct its own investigations on the separate drone strikes (UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 2012). The report issued by the UN Special Rapporteur expressed concern about the ‘exponential rise’ in the resort to drone technology in both military and non-military missions, mainly because it challenges the framework under which international law operates (UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 2012, p. 1). The report recognized that the international community has both a right and a responsibility to focus attention on the standards under which this technology is being made to operate, particularly concerning the use of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as instruments by which to carry out remote targeted killings in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency initiatives. The purpose includes establishing a consensus on the legality and standards concerning the use of drones, and the safeguards pertaining to it (UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 2012, p. 2). Since the technology shall persist into the future, it is imperative that legal and operational regulatory frameworks should be set up as a matter of urgency. The new standards must comply with international human rights law, international humanitarian law (formerly the law of war), international refugee law, and other provisions of international law as may be relevant (UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 2012, p. 2). The considerations in this issue are the following: (1) Article 6, Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Thus far, the pertinent and applicable standards are articulated in the Article 6 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which protects the individual’s supreme and inherent right to life, restricting any resort to the death penalty only to the most serious crimes (Article 6.1-6.2, ICCPR, 1966). The use of deadly force may be allowed only in cases of self-defence where the use of such force may be deemed absolutely necessary, and where no other recourse is possible. The stipulations of Article 6 make it necessary that States which desire to conduct operations against suspected terrorists who are not situated in an area of international armed conflict should first seek to arrest the person or persons. The State/s may use only lethal force only if the individual suspected of terrorism resists arrest and the resort to firearms becomes necessary. (2) The U.S position It is the position of the Obama administration and other international lawyers that the democratic countries of the West are presently engaged in a conflict of global proportions with a stateless antagonist, that the theatre of conflict is not confined within geographical boundaries, and there appears to be no constraints as to time. Because of its hardline stance, this position has drawn strong criticism (UN Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 2012, p. 3). (3) Nature of the armed conflict Another perspective on the issue urges the inquiry as to whether the terrorist organisation to which the individual supposedly belongs is engaged in an internal or non-international armed conflict with its own particular government, similar to the cases of Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan (Woods & Lamb, 2012), and thereafter to determine on what grounds and under what standards a third State may intervene or may be engaged as a party to the armed conflict in support of the forces of the government. (a) Express or implied consent Pursuant to international law, the participation of a third party-State is legal if it is done at the express request of the government of the State in which the conflict is taking place. The legality becomes ambiguous if the intervention of the third party State is done without the request or even consent of the State. There is a general dispute in so far as involves the situation wherein implied consent or acquiescence is enough. (b) Sovereignty The question also arises as to whether drone strikes conducted in the territory of another State constitutes a violation of that State’s sovereignty. It is possible that no violation may exist in the case where the State whose territory is the site of the drone attack is either unable or unwilling to address the terrorist threat that is posed by the insurgent group that internally operates within the territory. 9. On torture and other cruel treatment (UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council. 1 Feb 2013) Torture is defined as ‘an act inflicting severes pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,’ inclusive of the elements of intent, the specific purpose, and the involvement of a State official, at least by acquiescence (UN Convention against Torture, A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, para.30). For an act to be classified as torture, it must possess the four key elements mentioned in its definition. Otherwise, acts that do not fit foursquare into the above definition may be designated as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (UN Convention A/63/175, Article 16 para. 46. The Convention describes several purposes for which torture is usually inflicted, such as to extract a confession, to gain information, punishment, intimidation or coercion, and discrimination (UN Convention against Torture, A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, para.35). The States are obliged to prevent torture, and this obligation is indivisible, interrelated and interdependent with the obligation to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The obligation to prevent torture does not rest with public officials or law enforcement agents alone, but also with doctors, health-care professionals, hospital workers and those who serve in similar institutions and detention centres (The New York Times, 2009). The special report on torture as a counter-terrorism measure has not yet been released; however, recent events in Guantanamo Bay and a relatively earlier incident at Abu Ghraib prison are just two of the many unreported locations where torture is regularly conducted in order to extract information for counter-terrorism intelligence (The New York Times, 2009). Under the Bush administration, it was admitted that torture including head-slapping, waterboarding (simulated drowning) and frigid temperatures, was used to obtain information about the location of Osama Bin Laden, which finally led to his killing. What is remarkable is that a U.S. Judge gave explicit authorization (Shane, Johnston & Risen, 2007). More recently, the UN called force-feeding ‘torture’ in the midst of a hunger strike by detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the US holding area for terrorists and combatant prisoners (Agence-France Press, 2013). The fact that local tribunals are explicitly authorizing the use of torture (Shane, et al., 2007) exemplifies the lengths at which local authorities will allow the use of torture to get information they consider vital in the fight against counter-terrorism. The reason for such extreme techniques, which are clearly in violation of a person’s right to live, is because of the sense of urgency with which the U.S. is seeking to maintain a terrorist-free homeland after the collapse of the World Trade Twin Towers in 2001. The more recent bombing in the Boston Marathon (CNN, 2013) is proof of the fact that people in the US, who until 2001 have not experienced terrorism in their soil, are now vulnerable to terrorist attack which has prompted officials to adopt a tougher stance on interrogations. 10. Summary and Conclusion The United Nations has staunchly advocated for the protection of human rights for all people in all circumstances. However, the present realities require a harder stance on terrorists who do not accord others the enjoyment of their human rights. Increasingly counter-terrorism efforts have encroached on human rights, from the right of people to enjoy their economic, social, and cultural right, to their right to a fair trial, to freedom of association and assembly, to respect for their gender, to privacy, to be free from torture, and from a sudden and instantaneous death by drone attack. The clamour appears to be increasing on both sides, for the observance of human rights on the one hand, and the strengthening resolve against terrorism at the expense of some of our human rights, on the other. The debate has reached the courts and upper echelons of government, with some tribunals authorizing torture in some cases. The recent bombing in Boston and other similar events which have taken place around the globe have sparked an awareness that for innocent lives to be saved, some not-so-innocent persons must pay the price of the relinquishment of their rights. The problem with such a trend of thought is that as States become emboldened in transgressing human rights, it becomes harder to distinguish who are the innocent and who are the terrorists. There is no clear decision on this matter; all that can be done is to maintain vigilance, and choose each course of action with great deliberation. References Agence-France Press. 2013 ‘UN calls force-feeding ‘torture’ amid Guantanamo hunger strike.’ France 24 International News. 5 Feb 2013. Available at: http://www.france24.com/en/20130501-force-feeding-torture-un-law-guantanamo-hunger-strike CNN Staff. 2013 ‘Here’s the latest on the Boston Marathon bombs.’ CNN ( 3 May 2013). Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/03/justice/boston-bombs-latest-developments/index.html High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change 2004, “A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility”, A/59/565 (2004), paragraph 164 (d). Schmid, Alex P. 2007 “Why terrorism? Root causes, some empirical findings, and the Case of 9/11”, Council of Europe document, available from http://www.coe.int/gmt. Shane, Scott; Johnston, David & Risen, James. 2007 ‘Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations.’ The New York Times. 4 October 2007. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?ref=waterboarding&_r=0 The New York Times. Abu Ghraib. 2009 Available at: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/abu_ghraib/index.html [Accessed 28 April 2013] UN Economic and Social Council. 2005 Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. E/CN.4/2006/98 (28 December 2005). Available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Terrorism/Pages/Issues.aspx [Accessed 28 April 2013] UN General Assembly 2009 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, martin Scheinin. A/HRC/13/37. (28 December 2009). Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/178/04/PDF/G0917804.pdf?OpenElement [Accessed 28 April 2013] UN General Assembly 2008 Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. A/63/223. (6 August 2008) Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/451/82/PDF/N0845182.pdf?OpenElement [Accessed 28 April 2013] UN General Assembly 2006 Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. A/61/267 (16 August 2006). Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/477/03/PDF/N0647703.pdf?OpenElement [Accessed 28 April 2013] UN General Assembly. Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. A/64/211 (3 August 2009). Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/437/55/PDF/N0943755.pdf?OpenElement [Accessed 28 April 2013] United Nations Action to Counter Terrorism 2013 ‘ Protecting Human Rights while countering terrorism’ UN Action to Counter Terrorism. Available at http://www.un.org/terrorism/terrorism-hr.shtml [Accessed 28 April 2013] United Nations General Assembly 2012 ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson’ (4 June 2012). Available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A-HRC-20-14_en.pdf [Accessed 28 April 2013] United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner 2012. Statement by Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights concerning the launch of an inquiry into the civilian impact, and human rights implications of the use of drones and other forms of targeted killing for the purpose of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. (2012) Available at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/130124_SRCTBenEmmersonQCStatement.pdf [Accessed 28 April 2013] Women for Women International, 2008 “Stronger Women Stronger Nations: 2008 Iraq Report, Amplifying the Voices of Women in Iraq”, 16-27 (March 2008). Available at http://www.womenforwomen.org/news-women-for-women/assets/files/IraqReport.03.03.08.pdf [Accessed 28 April 2013] Read More