HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS DIALOGUE WITH SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS ON HUMAN RIGHTS WHILE COUNTERING TERRORISM AND ON CULTURAL RIGHTS

The Human Rights Council this morning held a clustered interactive dialogue with Ben Emmerson, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, and with Karima Bennoune, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights.

Mr. Emmerson said that the report he was presenting concerned human rights issues raised by efforts to counter violent extremism. He drew attention to two areas of concern, namely that there was no internationally agreed definition of violent extremism, and also that addressing the conditions conducive to the spread of violent extremism should be an essential goal of the global strategy against violent extremism. His report also highlighted specific areas of potential rights violations by States in the context of countering violent extremism.

Karima Bennoune said her first report focused on the intentional destruction of cultural heritage as a violation of human rights. She underlined that cultural rights were not tantamount to cultural relativism, adding that the early twenty-first century had had a new wave of deliberate destruction. A human rights perspective on the protection of cultural heritage had to be applied, whereas attention had to be paid to the robust use of international standards for holding non-State actors to account.

Botswana spoke as a concerned country.

In the ensuing discussion on countering terrorism and violent extremism, speakers agreed that a comprehensive and holistic approach was needed, with a focus on the root causes of violent extremism. Some of the most important issues to address were addressing money laundering and the financing of terrorism. It was crucial that all States fully respected human rights and fundamental freedoms to hold accountable those responsible for violations. Some speakers warned that terrorism should not be identified with any culture or religious denomination and they regretted that anti-terrorist strategies of certain States focused on specific communities, which could only exacerbate extremism. Others noted that disagreements on the definition of violent extremism could complicate the development of a joint international approach.

In the discussion on cultural rights, speakers noted that the deliberate destruction of tangible and intangible cultural heritage was of great concern and that there was a need to protect cultural heritage as an important part of common cultural identity. They encouraged the Special Rapporteur to further her work on the protection of cultural heritage and to complement the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s work from a human rights perspective. Some speakers insisted that cultural rights and freedom of thoughts were complementary, and that cultural rights should not be used to justify restrictions on freedom of expression.

The following delegations participated in the discussion: European Union, Kuwait on behalf of the Arab Group, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Switzerland, Bolivia, Israel, Belgium, Serbia, Tunisia, Nigeria, Namibia, United States, Russian Federation, Algeria, Egypt, Italy, Pakistan, Morocco, Council of Europe, United Arab Emirates, Cuba, China, Mexico, Indonesia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Brazil, Malaysia, Ecuador, Libya, Turkey, Ethiopia, Armenia, United Kingdom, Albania, Côte d’Ivoire, Lebanon, Venezuela, Mali, Sudan, Afghanistan, New Zealand, Georgia, Benin, Maldives, Cyprus, Ukraine, Syria, Jordan, Estonia, Iraq, Paraguay, France, Ireland, Panama, Azerbaijan, Iran, Qatar, and South Africa on behalf of the African Group. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organization also spoke.

The following national human rights institution and civil society organizations also spoke: Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, COC Nederland, International Commission of Jurists, Al-Khoei Foundation, Alulbayt Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Now, World Muslim Congress, International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, Institut International pour la Paix, la Justice et les Droits de l’Homme, East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, Global Network for Rights and Development, International Organisation for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education, and Alsalam Foundation.

At 1 p.m., the Council will hold an interactive dialogue with the High Commissioner for Human Rights on his annual report.

Documentation

The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (A/HRC/31/65).

The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights (A/HRC/31/59).

The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights – Mission to Botswana (A/HRC/31/59/Add.1).

The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights – Mission to Botswana – comments by the State (A/HRC/31/59/Add.2).

Presentation of Reports on the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism and on Cultural Rights

BEN EMMERSON, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, said that the report he was presenting concerned human rights issues raised by efforts to counter violent extremism. The report did not aim to question the essential value of seeking alternatives to the use of security-based measures for countering violent ideologies. The Secretary-General’s Plan of Action was a significant development in the global fight against violent extremism. It was essentially a practical document which set out 70 separate recommendations for action at all levels. In some States, the agenda to counter violent extremism had been abused to suppress political opposition or ideological dissent from mainstream values. He drew attention to two areas of concern which carried risks that rights-compliant counter-radicalisation initiatives might be imperilled by States’ adoption of an ill-defined agenda to counter violent extremism. Firstly, he underlined that there was no internationally agreed definition of violent extremism, and that the absence of consensus on that important matter meant some States could use countering violent extremism to repress those whose political views were hostile to the Government.

There were legitimate fears that in the absence of a clear definition, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1728 might be used by States to justify what he called highly intrusive, disproportionate or discriminatory measures against individuals. He said that his report cited a number of recent cases in which legislation relating to extremism was used against the activities of non-violent groups, against journalists, and against political actors critical of State policy. Secondly, addressing the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism had been an essential goal of the global counterterrorism strategy for a decade, and the same ought to go for violent extremism. His mandate endorsed the view expressed in the Secretary-General’s Plan of Action that extremism did not occur in a vacuum, and that the creation of societies based on respect for human rights represented the alternative to violent extremism. Simplistic understandings of how people were radicalised were justifications for failing to address the conditions conducive to the spread of violent extremism. In addition to those two concerns, he said the report highlighted specific areas of potential rights violations by States in the context of countering violent extremism, such as the risk that extremism would be used to justify greater intrusions into the digital privacy of targeted individuals or groups. Programmes to counter violent extremism should not be based on a particular community being identified as being at risk of radicalisation, because programmes then might be perceived as just another means of security and intelligence-based law enforcement.

KARIMA BENNOUNE, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, presented her first report which focused on the intentional destruction of cultural heritage as a violation of human rights. She said that one of her main goals was to promote the enjoyment of cultural rights without any discrimination, adding that she had been particularly disturbed by recent political discourses of exclusion, sometimes directed at entire religious or other groups, as well as by intentional targeting and destruction in both conflict and non-conflict situations. Cultural heritage was significant in the present both as a message from the past and as a pathway to the future. Viewed from a human rights perspective, it was important not only in itself, but also in relation to its human dimension. Cultural heritage was a fundamental resource for other human rights, in particular the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and religion, as well as the economic rights of the many people who earned a living through tourism related to such heritage, and the right to development. A special protection regime governed the protection of cultural heritage in times of conflict, namely the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954 (the 1954 Hague Convention). Ms. Bennoune noted with concern that many States may not have enacted adequate implementing legislation or fulfilled their obligations. Attention had to be paid to the robust use of international standards for holding non-State actors to account and preventing their engaging in destruction. Individual criminal responsibility arose from serious offences against cultural heritage, which could rise to the level of war crimes or to crimes against humanity, and could also be evidence of the intent to destroy a group within the meaning of the genocide convention.

Ms. Bennoune stressed that cultural rights were not tantamount to cultural relativism. Attacks on cultural heritage deeply affected local populations. In the early twenty-first century a new wave of deliberate destruction was being recorded and displayed for the world to see. There was an urgent challenge to cultural rights which required rapid and thoughtful response by the United Nations human rights system. A human rights perspective on the protection of cultural heritage had to emphasize the human rights of cultural first responders, those who were on the frontlines in the struggle to protect it.

Speaking of her predecessor’s visit to Botswana, Ms. Bennoune commended the country for its achievements in the area of development and poverty reduction. Despite the Government’s efforts, the legacy of prioritization of Tswana interests and culture over marginalized tribes persisted in the social and political dynamics of the country. A second phase of nation-building was needed that equally recognized the various groups and diverse ways in which they related to their environment. The Government should continue to ensure that historically underrepresented groups were effectively represented in the Ntlo ya Dikgosi (House of Chiefs). The Government was also encouraged to continue implementing the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s recommendations to protect the Okavango Delta as a World Heritage Site. Special Rapporteur Farida Shaheed also recommended that the Government engage with the San of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve to reach agreements fully respecting the cultural rights of the San people.

Statement by Concerned Country

Botswana, speaking as a concerned country, said that it was not yet party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. Nevertheless, Botswana had signed international instruments that allowed communities to document, publicise and assert their cultural values, practices, beliefs and traditions, and to popularise cultural products both nationally and internationally. It had further enacted laws that recognised the cultural diversity of the country and allowed free expression and practice of different cultures. Botswana had noted the conclusions and recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur Farida Shaheed at the end of her visit in November 2014, and would give them due consideration, particularly to those on the ratification of relevant treaties.

Interactive Dialogue

European Union asked which definition Mr. Emmerson would recommend for violent extremism so as to avoid the risks and obstacles his report had identified due to the lack of such a definition. Ms. Bennoune was asked to elaborate on how the rights of dissenting or disempowered individuals within groups could be realized. Kuwait, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that a security solution could not solve the problem of terrorism, and that the root causes must be dealt with, adding that the Arab Group was working on a comprehensive strategy to combat ISIS. Saudi Arabia wished to clarify that terrorism had no religion or nationality, detailing national initiatives and measures taken, including the setting up of a centre to combat terrorist ideologies. South Africa expressed agreement with many of the conclusions made by the Special Rapporteurs, adding that it was critical that States steered away from conflating “violent extremism” with “terrorism”. Switzerland asked Ms. Bennoune to expand on how and to what end she wished to study the scope of imperative military necessity, and on violent extremism expressed a wish to hear more on how preventing violent extremism was related to the prevention of atrocities. Bolivia underlined the crucial nature of immaterial heritage which included ancestral, indigenous and peasant knowledge, adding that the Bolivian Constitution said the State had a duty to preserve diversity.

Israel said that terrorism and extremism flourished when the glorification of martyrdom was part of the school’s curriculum and expanded when financial support was allocated to families of terrorists. Decisive counter-terrorism measures were required, along with educational efforts for moderation and peace by first showing zero tolerance towards those who educated for the opposite. Belgium said that education was key to prevent violent extremism, and asked what definition of violent extremism the Special Rapporteur would recommend to adopt. Belgium was currently adopting a new plan of action to combat terrorism and violent extremism. Serbia concurred with the Special Rapporteur’s assessment that the international and systematic destruction of cultural heritage, particularly during armed conflicts, had a serious impact on human rights. Serbia agreed with the view that measures to counter terrorism had to be in compliance with international human rights law, and asked what measures could be taken to prevent violent extremism.

Tunisia said that no one was spared by terrorism, as illustrated by the recent terrorist attacks in Tunisia. Tunisia gave priority to peace and dialogue, and to finding solutions to strike the roots of terrorism. International cooperation was important, along with efforts in the field of development. Nigeria said that it had been saddled with the Boko Haram phenomenon since 2009. Boko Haram’s atrocities were horrific, and had led to thousands of civilian deaths and displacement. Nigeria’s counterterrorism activities focused on providing justice to victims, limiting the pool of potential conscripts by creating employment for youth, shutting off Boko Haram’s source of funding and access to weapons, and building community resilience and capacities. Namibia shared the view that the Human Rights Council was in continual danger of duplicating the efforts of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council on countering the scourges of terrorism and violent extremism. The Council should focus on the human rights aspects of countering terrorism and violent extremism, as well as on prevention.

United States stated that preventing and countering violent extremism effectively required a comprehensive and holistic approach, with a focus on preventing conditions that could foster violent extremism. Although the United States did not share the Special Rapporteur’s concerns, it welcomed the report’s recommendations on the need for increased research and the importance of all States to comply with their obligations under international human rights law. Russian Federation agreed that the definition of violent extremism complicated the development of a joint international approach. It shared the need for the protection of cultural heritage from barbaric destruction, noting that it was necessary to stop the illegal sales of cultural artefacts in the Middle East. It also called on the Special Rapporteur to pay attention to the violation of cultural rights in Ukraine. Algeria noted that the international community had to fight with determination unacceptable acts of xenophobia and Islamophobia through legislative and institutional measures. As for cultural rights, Algeria shared the Special Rapporteur’s views that it was necessary to analyse cultural practices that discriminated against women.

Egypt warned that terrorism should not be identified with any culture or religious denomination. Terrorism should be fought through an international approach based on the respect for human rights. It regretted that anti-terrorist strategies of certain States focused on specific communities, which could exacerbate extremism. Italy encouraged the Special Rapporteur to further her work and her approach to the protection of cultural heritage and to complement the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s work from a human rights perspective. As for countering terrorism and violent extremism, it was crucial that all States fully respect human rights and fundamental freedoms to hold accountable those responsible for violations. Pakistan noted that terrorism had deeply struck Pakistani society and that the Government had devoted a lot of resources to fight that phenomenon. While countering the scourge of terrorism and extremism, the Government was fully committed to the promotion and protection of human rights of all its citizens.

Morocco said cultural rights and diversity could not suffer from relativism or isolationism on a global scale, observed that terrorism suffered the same lack of definition as violent extremism, but that had not prevented States from adopting the Global Strategy, and asked the Rapporteur for a definition of “violent extremism.” Council of Europe spoke about its May 2015 Action Plan to combat extremism and radicalization leading to terrorism, which included measures such as a 24/7 network for the exchange of police information relating to foreign terrorist fighters. United Arab Emirates joined the appeal to further protect victims of terrorism, adding that more fairness was needed in international relations, also detailing measures taken at the national, regional and international levels. Cuba said Mr. Emmerson’s analysis allowed the international community to enter into discussion on the relationship between violent extremism and terrorism, adding appreciation for Ms. Bennoune’s report and noting that Cuba would table a draft resolution on cultural rights at the current session. China said the key to winning the fight against terrorism was focused strategies aimed at root causes. Breeding grounds for terrorism had to be eliminated, and China stood ready to cooperate with all parties to fight terrorism. Mexico took note of the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation that States should focus efforts to implement Pillar 1 and 4 of the Global Strategy, asking which tools and good practices at the national level could promote the implementation of those pillars?

Indonesia said that it had continuously advocated that violent ideologies had no room for justification, and stressed the need for swift, quick, professional and accountable responses to terrorist acts. The success of Indonesia in carrying out democratic practices demonstrated that the values of democracy, peace and Islam could coexist harmoniously. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said that activities by extremist groups were forcing civilians to leave their homes to seek protection in safer places, and referred to the risks displaced persons faced, particularly from human trafficking. How could these subsequent consequences of terrorism and violent extremism be dealt with in a more preventive manner? Brazil stressed the importance of preventing violations of cultural rights in all circumstances. Automatically linking violent extremism to terrorism would be misleading, Brazil said, recalling the importance of developing comprehensive strategies to prevent conflicts and tackle both violent extremism and terrorism, in full compliance with international human rights law.

Malaysia said that the motivations and root causes for terrorism and violent extremism needed to be addressed, and underlined the importance of moderation. Malaysia asked whether the exercise of defining the concept of violent extremism could highlight divisions among States vis-à-vis such definition? Ecuador condemned all acts of terrorism, even cases where States were involved, and recalled that terrorism should not be linked to any religious groups, and should be combatted while respecting human rights. Ecuador condemned the destruction of cultural heritage, which was a violation of cultural rights. Libya said that the members of Da’esh in Libya came mostly from foreign countries, and attacked oil structures in the country. It was essential that the international community provided Libya with support and cooperation, including for the training of its forces, while fully respecting the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Turkey noted that while the international community had to be united against violent extremism, it had to keep in mind that it was not limited to a specific ideology or system of belief, and that it could not be associated with any country, religion or culture. States should focus on the Global Counter Terrorism Strategy. Ethiopia concurred with the idea of the Special Rapporteur that attempting to address violent extremism through security-based counter-terrorism measures had been insufficient to prevent the emergence of new violent extremist groups. It welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s focus on the international destruction of cultural heritage as her priority theme. Armenia regretted the destruction of many sacred places, such as Palmyra, Nimrod and the blowing up of the Armenian Church of the Holy Martyrs in Deir ez-Zor. Those and similar barbaric acts committed against civilization were also brutal reminders that crimes that had gone unpunished were prone to reoccurrence, and could even lead to genocide.

Organization of Islamic Cooperation agreed that a strict security approach to terrorism had failed to prevent the spread of terrorism and the proliferation of terrorist groups, and that its root causes should be addressed, in addition to security and military considerations. The deliberate destruction of tangible and intangible cultural heritage was of great concern to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. United Kingdom condemned the atrocities perpetrated by groups such as Da’esh and Boko Haram, noting that violent extremism constituted a threat to universal rights. It asked the Special Rapporteur to elaborate on how the international community could support conflict-afflicted States to give equal priority to the safeguarding of cultural heritage in post-conflict scenarios, alongside state building and institutional capacity building measures. Albania noted that it was gravely concerned about the recent acts of destruction of cultural heritage, particularly in conflict zones, and urged the international community to act in order to protect cultural heritage as an important part of common cultural identity. It also strongly condemned terrorism and violent extremism in all its forms and manifestations.

Côte d’Ivoire said that abuses by non-State armed groups were a pressing issue for targeted responses. The Council had a key role to play in combatting the scourge of terrorist groups. Respect for and protection of cultural rights were rooted in the framework of international human rights. Lebanon said the report of Mr. Emmerson was overly general, adding that Lebanon was in a continual face-off with terrorism and with ISIS, Da’esh and the Nusra Front, which was the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda. Venezuela said that the fight against terrorism was being used to abolish fundamental rights, naming through the use of drones and airspace violations. Support was reaffirmed for the mandate of the Rapporteur on cultural rights. Mali said that since the occupation of its national territory in 2012, Mali had continued to suffer repeated attacks which targeted civilian populations, and attacks which targeted cultural heritage, such as the manuscripts of Timbuktu. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization supported the intention of Ms. Bennoune to address the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as part of her mandate, adding details of UNESCO’s measures taken lately in the field of the protection of culture. Sudan said that it was countering terrorism through national plans based on ideological and security cornerstones, and asked Ms. Bennoune whether efforts should be made to approach countries where stolen artefacts were stocked in museums.

Afghanistan said that terrorism had a direct impact on human rights, in particular the rights to life, liberty and physical integrity. It negatively affected certain groups, and destabilized Governments. Combatting terrorism required a long-term strategy addressing the political dimension of this phenomenon, while respecting human rights. New Zealand said that strategies and measures to combat violent extremism had to fully respect human rights, and underlined the risks of not having an agreed definition of violent extremism, such as having a definition that was too broad and misusing it. Georgia condemned in the strongest possible terms all acts of terrorism, and supported efforts to prevent violent extremism. Georgia was particularly alarmed at cultural heritage being deliberately targeted by States or non-State actors, and said that Georgian monuments were deliberately targeted in occupied Georgian regions with total impunity.

Benin said that culture needed to be protected from attempts to uniform, negate or destruct. Benin remained determined to combat terrorism, and would deploy 800 soldiers to combat Boko Haram. Maldives said that it was committed to suppress any threat of violent extremism to the population through adequate measures and legislation. Violent extremism should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group. Cyprus recalled that it was a member of the core group of the initiative for a cross-regional statement on cultural rights and the protection of cultural heritage. It had extended an invitation to Ms. Bennoune and encouraged other Member and Observer States to do the same.

Ukraine voiced great concern over the situation in occupied Crimea, which remained extremely dire as ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars continued to face systematic harassment and persecution. Their cultural rights, including linguistic and religious rights, were restricted. It asked the Special Rapporteur to visit the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in order to estimate the real situation on the ground. Syria condemned the systematic destruction of cultural heritage in Iraq and Syria by Da’esh and other terrorist groups. It was essential to trace the guilty parties and to prosecute them for illegal trade and smuggling of cultural artefacts. It was also important to move way from selective attitudes regarding terrorism and extreme violence. Jordan noted that unresolved and protracted conflicts and foreign occupation contributed to radicalization and violent extremism. Any policy countering violent extremism should focus on youth, as education in general was key to fighting extremism.

Estonia urged everyone to respect, protect and fulfil cultural rights in the context of implementing the full range of human rights within the universal human rights framework. While countering violent extremism, freedom of expression needed to be carefully considered vis-a-vis restrictive measures by the State. Iraq stressed the importance of the right to life, as well as of other human rights, within the framework of the combat against terrorism. Iraq conducted human rights training for its military forces in order to raise awareness about international humanitarian law. Paraguay noted that cultural heritage constituted part of people’s memory and it contributed to the development of a society. Preserving cultural heritage was therefore an essential part of the protection of tradition and identity. To that end the Government had been working to guarantee the cultural rights of all citizens, including women and indigenous peoples.

France concurred with the Special Rapporteur’s view that cultural rights could not be advanced to justify limitations to the enjoyment of other rights, in particular by women, children and vulnerable persons. Measures had to be taken by the international community and States to combat the intentional destruction of cultural heritage, including through strengthened measures against trafficking in cultural goods. France agreed that having a broad definition of violent extremism would lead to risks of States using it to restrict freedom of expression. Ireland underlined the importance of the protection of persons engaged in the preservation of cultural heritage. Ireland also noted the key role of civil society organizations in preventing violent extremism, and stressed the importance of promoting inclusion and protecting human rights in combatting violent extremism. Panama said that it had made culture the basis of nationality, and recognized States’ responsibility to safeguard culture. It voiced concern about the destruction of cultural heritage during armed conflicts.

Azerbaijan said that it was a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, and that its efforts to promote multicultural dialogue could be used as an example, especially in Europe. Azerbaijan’s occupation by Armenia had led to barbaric acts and atrocities aimed at destroying Azerbaijani and Muslim cultural heritage. Iran noted that terrorism and violent extremism should not be associated with one religion or ethnic group, adding that the destructive role of the media in promoting hate speech and intolerance had led to increased extremism. Iran welcomed the decision by the International Criminal Court’s Prosecutor’s Office to open a case on the destruction of cultural heritage in Iraq and Syria. Qatar was committed to combat terrorism at the international, regional and national levels through measures aimed at addressing money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Qatar had also launched initiatives in favour of cultural rights and multicultural dialogue. South Africa, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that it was of paramount importance to recall that terrorism and violent extremism could not be associated with any religion or culture. These phenomena were fuelled by poverty, racism and human rights violations. Criminal activities by Boko Haram had affected vast areas, and efforts by States to combat terrorism should be supplemented by international cooperation based on the exchange of best practices and expertise.

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia underscored the urgent need for a global fight against the growing threat of terrorism and extremism. There was a need to develop a comprehensive and deterrent approach to terrorism. The Commission expressed concerns over some national anti-terrorism laws, namely possible abuse of power and denial of the right to a fair trial, and the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention.

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights stated that, since May 2013, an aggressive “counter-terrorism” drive with a strongly political dimension had involved an expansion of militarization across the plateau, all in the absence of any violent protest in Tibet. Peace and security could not be achieved through the suppression of human rights. People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, speaking on behalf of 52 “South Korean” non-governmental organizations, said that the new Counter-Terrorism Act in the Republic of Korea would only serve to further violate the freedom of expression and right to privacy. The Act strengthened the authority of the National Intelligence Service to an unprecedented level. COC Nederland voiced concern about the clampdown on cultural practices, including pride marches, threats towards female cultural performers and the intentional destruction of cultural heritage. Cultural rights were sometimes used as an excuse for harmful cultural practices.

International Commission of Jurists stated that numerous terrorism laws promulgated in a number of countries included overly broad or imprecise definitions of terrorism-related offences. They could be abused and provided sweeping immunities that contributed to pervasive impunity for unlawful killings by security forces. Al-Khoei Foundation said that 2015 had displayed grave violations against the protection of heritage and religious places in the Middle East. The protection of heritage sites should be an essential segment of security and peace strategies in the region. Alulbayt Foundation stressed that one of the main victims of terrorism by extremist groups like ISIS and Boko Haram were undoubtedly Shia Muslims, who were targeted globally in a series of premeditated attacks. The Council should condemn and confront Shia discrimination.

American Civil Liberties Union said that in the absence of a definition of violent extremism, programmes designed to prevent this phenomena paused a great threat to human rights. In the United States, those programmes had targeted Muslims more than others, and had created risks to children’s rights. Human Rights Now expressed grave concern over the ongoing crisis in Iraq, with 3,500 citizens being currently treated as slaves in ISIL-controlled areas. The Iraqi and Kurdish forces and their militias had perpetrated violations of human rights against Shia Muslims, and the international coalition had inflicted civilian casualties. World Muslim Congress said that the fact that the definition of terrorism varied from State to State had contributed to the failure of the international community to address this phenomenon. Worse, the term terrorism was sometimes used to criminalize opponents, particularly in the occupied territories of Jammu and Kashmir.

International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations said that restrictions to freedom of expression should not be disproportionate, and raised the Council’s attention to militants, including students, from Kashmir who had been arbitrarily arrested by the Indian Government. Institut International pour la Paix, la Justice et les Droits de l’Homme said that the focus on the right to security through repressive measures impeded the enjoyment of human rights, including the right to freedom of expression. Countries had misused the excuse of combatting terrorism to restrict liberties. Enhancing human rights was the best tool against terrorism. East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project echoed risks of a broad definition of terrorism, and referred to the misuse of counterterrorism legislation by Ethiopia to criminalize political dissent.

Global Network for Rights and Development spoke about terrorism worldwide and addressed international responses to the problem, which among other things should include further efforts to end the war in Syria. International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education said that cultural rights had an impact on peace and human security, noting that they dealt with several challenges including that due to the multiple dimensions of cultural and adjacent rights, it was hard to find a clear delimitation. Alsalam Foundation said in a joint statement that the demolition of many cultural and heritage sites in Mecca and Medina amounted to a cultural genocide, calling on the Special Rapporteur to undertake an “urgent and immediate” visit to Saudi Arabia.

Concluding Remarks

BEN EMMERSON, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said that a number of States had asked for an elaboration of the definition of violent extremism. Mr. Emmerson said that the fundamental problem was that one single legal definition was not possible. Far greater thoughts and research needed to go into that issue. There was no empirical evidence whatsoever that counter-violent extremism strategies around the world had any tangible results. There was an inevitable danger of “window dressing” by the international community by applying programmes which had not been thoroughly thought through. Mr. Emmerson stressed that there was also no evidence on the effectiveness of programmes to prevent violent extremism leading to grave crimes. There needed to be alternatives to military and law enforcement strategies. One good practice was protecting civil society as a key partner in countering the appeal of extremist ideologies. States needed the help of non-governmental organizations to deliver messages to those who were most vulnerable to radicalization. Civil society space ought not to be restricted. In some States educators were asked to become watchdogs and those working in the public sector would turn into spies. If it was known that educators were acting as informers for the State, acting against violent extremism would actually be undermined. Effective counter-terrorism measures were in themselves human rights obligations undertaken by States.

KARIMA BENNOUNE, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, reviewed comments and questions from delegations in response to the presentation of her report, thanking among others Cuba for its leadership on creating her mandate and also for its resolution on cultural heritage and cultural rights. On the mapping part of her report, she said that she appreciated the support expressed for the core ideas of her mandate, which included the interrelationship between universality and cultural diversity. She said she would give great thought to the cultural rights of refugees and migrants, also thanking States for their comments on the cultural rights of indigenous peoples. Noting that she had been asked how to support dissenting and disempowered individuals, she said it was a matter of great concern to her, and she planned to emphasise the rights of persons with disabilities and women. She expressed interest in visiting countries where the destruction of cultural heritage was a relevant issue and learning from best practices, adding that the work of protecting cultural rights could not be done at the international or national levels without resources. If the world wanted cultural heritage to be saved for future generations, young people had to be engaged, she said, adding that “we live in a world where a 2,000 year old temple can be destroyed by a 20-year old in the blink of an eye”.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC16/024E