Terrorism Issues for Human Rights - Essay Example

? TERRORISM AND ECHR ARTICLE 5 OF 1950 TERRORISM AND ECHR ARTICLE 5 OF 1950 Terrorism activities result to great unprecedented losses, which forms the basis of the formulation of anti-terrorism legislations. Terrorist activities are normally directed to harm innocent civilians in a state by the terror groups whose motives may vary from a terror attack to another. Numerous laws have been framed in the past to control the challenge of terrorism, which has grown to become a global challenge as against a specific country’s challenge. The formulations of these legislations usually follow the cases, as they are experienced therefore having no set of universally acceptable legal framework to work wholly against the terror attacks. However, despite the urgency that terror attacks require of the legal attention, human rights are to be put into perspective as the legislations are crafted. Critics of majority of the recently crafted legislations concerning terrorism activities argue that the legislations fail to acknowledge the provisions of human rights as ought to be. In particular, the article five of the European convention of Human rights has clear provisions as regards the universal human rights ascribed to detainees, or arrests on suspension. Terror attack suspects usually face arrests and detention before prosecution in a court of law locally or even across borders through deportation. During the arrests, detentions as well as the transfer from one country to another, the suspects or the culprits are normally subjected to extreme torture, physically as well as psychologically which according to human rights provisions are not warranted for. As the project describes, the legislation on terror activities have greatly revolutionized especially since the 2001 great attack in New York city in America. However, the human rights activists have on the other hand designed and imposed the provisions of human rights that when evaluated against the terror legislations, the laws are all violations to the rights as provided for within the human rights statutes. The fifth chapter of the ‘Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’1 stipulates that every individual has a right to safety and freedom. It outlines the provisions that govern human liberty and outlines the only times when personal liberty may be deprived especially in the event of procedures that are prescribed by law. It provides that people have the right to know through being told reasons to their arrest. This implies that prior to the arrest and being to custody for any case of violation to a country’s law, a person is entitled to full information. Detained persons and/or persons arrested on suspicion should be taken through trial within a reasonable time. It also provides for releases on conditions of appearing for trial. Detainees or persons in custody and whose rights to liberty are denied through slow trial have equal rights to quickened legal proceedings through which the lawfulness of their detention would be determined. The article also stipulates that under clear confirmation that any of the provisions under the article are deprived to any person under arrest or in detention, then he/she has legal and enforceable provision to compensation. However, the article also provides exceptional circumstances under which the human rights provision to personal liberty may be legally deprived in accordance to defined legislations. Therefore, in summary of the articles provision, all persons have the provisions by law to personal liberty and under the conditions provided for under which the liberty to a person may be infringed, then the deprivation must runs as per the law, continue for a reasonable period of time and must equally be proportionate. However, a critical analysis of the current legislations on terror, the suspects does suffer prolonged pre-charge detention even as compared to other suspects. The controls orders as well as the TPIM (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures) are interpreted to impose more implications on personal rights even before conviction. This however, when interpreted in line with the 1950 ECHR article 5 frameworks, is an infringement to these persons liberty and hence supporting our thesis that the laws go far beyond the provisions. According to the (Human Rights Review 2012) report, the pre charge prolonged detentions, the (TPIM) as well as the control orders as have been in place go against the article’s provisions2. Moreover, the detention for persons under immigration reasons in matters related to terrorism and suspicion often violate the provisions on personal liberty as provided for within the article. The review cites other bleaches to the article in that the legislations as applied after the 2001 have seen increased number of children(minors) detained on immigration, many detainees serving longer than necessary as well as deprivation of persons under detention their legal provision according to the article to challenge their detention. These in totality works against the personal liberty and security rights as are framed within the article. Although the United Kingdom legislations take to cognition the supremacy of the rights to persons under arrest as regards their liberty, there has been notable deliberate infringements of these provisions by law especially with the advent of terrorism as have been seen after the 2001 terror attacks in the UK. The ECHR is in cognizant of the critical need to heighten war against terrorism and know how the war entails restrictions to some basic rights. It however remains strict that the provisions, as they are within the article are basic and thus should be honored. In other words, the human rights as provided for are not subject to suspicion as well as to confirmations of charges as leveled against a person. Breau and team undertook a survey on the law instituted and enforced within the UK following the terror attack of 2001 and found that the haste in which it was drafted and passed within the parliament lead to major deviations against human right as provided for in the article 5 of 1950. As the team reason, some of the legal provisions are quite broad to cover more than just anti-terrorism acts. The act as was designed has eight schedules as well as over a hundred sections, which covers among other provisions the seizure of property belonging to terrorists, disclosure as well as retention of terror information, and detention of international suspect terrorists. The report found that some of the provisions within the acts involves serious restrictions to personal liberty as well as privacy3. An outstanding provision to the ‘Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001’ in section 23 is that international terrorist suspects would be indefinitely detained in the event that they cannot be deported to their countries. Persons under custody in suspicion or otherwise before trial must be detained for a predefined period and hence this indefinite term is absolute infringement to the persons liberty4. The above discussion is illustrating that the legislations that have been adopted by governments in control of terrorism acts has been broad in perspective. For instance, following the terror attacks in 2001, the UK parliament made and enacted legislations that were wide in perspective in matters relating to the powers of state organs such as the courts of justice and the police who are actively involved in pursuing terrorists and investigating the crime. Moreover, the legislations were made in perspective of the revealing human rights provision though in later analysis, much of the rights are seen to suffer infringement. The legislations as are made cover both international as well as local terrorist suspects and their activities. It is therefore through these provisions that terror suspects were to be tried and confiscated or in case of international terror crime necessitating deportation of the suspects, then the legislations were crafted broadly to accommodate the provisions. However, critics of the laws as have been crafted after 2001 point out that they are not respectful of the human right frameworks and if they are aware of, then no attention is paid at all. The analysis reveal that through the legal framework, terror suspects often suffer prolonged periods of detention which is against the framework of the article five as discussed above. There have been raised concerns that even the liberty of children in migration are infringed through minor detentions, which is against the frights in article five. Other studies have also revealed that detentions are often made without the prior proper information to the suspects through which h they suffer psychological as well as physical torture. In the event that the suspects have to be retained within the country against deportation to their countries, then unnecessary prolonged custody periods characterize the process. It is also clear that the efforts to seek justice in matters of unlawful detention by the victims as provided for within the article are often frustrated through compromised judicial systems through which then the human rights to liberty and seeking justice are deprived. This therefore shows that in some instances, the legislations as framed after 2001 normally goes beyond their legitimacy, are unjustified as well as they are disproportionate to their intended use. This therefore confirms that the legal frameworks that are framed to attend to terrorist activities go longer to bleach the human rights that they are formed to safeguard; the rights to security as well as liberty as clearly outlined through the fifth article of 1950 ECHR framework. Reference European Court of Human Rights Council of Europe (ECHR) Rome, 4.XI.1950Convention for the Protection Of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [2010]. Human Rights Review 2012 Article 5: The right to liberty and security S Breau et al, ‘Anti-Terrorism Law and Human Rights in the United Kingdom post September 11’ Human Rights Centre, Queens University Belfast. J Blackbourn, ‘The role of the European Convention on Human Rights on UK Counter-Terrorism Policy’ [2011] Paper presented at the ISA Annual Convention 2011. Read More