MORNING - Counter-terrorism and Security Are Frequently Used To Cover for the Adoption of High-risk and Highly Intrusive Technologies, Special Rapporteur Tells the Human Rights Council
Council Concludes Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
The Human Rights Council this morning started an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. It also concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.
Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, pointed out the risks posed by new technological advancements, particularly those developed with the stated aim of advancing security and countering terrorism. Her report addressed the way in which new technologies initially deployed by reference to exceptional circumstances were under-regulated as a consequence, and rapidly moved from marginal applications to general ones.
Ms. Ní Aoláin said that by exposing the challenges of counter-terrorism exceptionalities in legal and political systems, her report illuminated the ways in which counter-terrorism and security were frequently used to provide political and legal justifications, or cover for the adoption of high-risk and highly intrusive technologies. Counter-terrorism had been the foil, muse and cover for making the case for high-risk technologies, and the cost to the world’s greater collective freedom had been immense. Counter-terrorism data collection must come with national legislation that protected the rights of those, essentially all, whose data was being collected, used, transferred and stored. Data protection legislation should be seen as a fundamental right in the digital age.
Ms. Ní Aoláin spoke about her mission to Maldives, and Maldives spoke as a country concerned.
In the ensuing discussion, many speakers thanked the Special Rapporteur for her report, saying they agreed that although new technologies had many promises, they could be dangerous. Speakers emphasised the destructive impact of terrorism on nations and its ability to erase progress made by societies, particularly in the economic and developmental spheres. Many speakers reaffirmed their firm position against terrorism and extremism and supported international efforts to combat terrorism and dry up its sources of financing. Some speakers shared the Special Rapporteur’s concern that the misuse of new technologies could have serious negative impacts on the enjoyment of human rights, even if the intention was to prevent acts against civilian populations. It was vital to address and mitigate the human rights risks associated with these technologies.
Some speakers noted that the respect for human rights should not be an excuse to support terrorist groups by the same countries that imposed inhumane sanctions on developing countries under the pretext of terrorism and deprived them of many economic opportunities. At the same time, these countries gave safe haven to terrorist groups in the name of protecting and promoting human rights. Some speakers described unilateral coercive measures imposed on the targeted States, as 'economic terrorism' which had caused the violation of the basic human rights of populations in the States concerned.
Speaking in the discussion were Finland on behalf of the Nordic-Baltic countries, European Union, Mexico on behalf of a group of countries, Oman on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Côte d'Ivoire on behalf of the Group of African States, Ecuador, Ireland, United Kingdom, United Nations Children's Fund, Switzerland, Tunisia, United States, Burkina Faso, China, Luxembourg, India, Belgium, Costa Rica, Togo, Indonesia, Russian Federation, Cameroon, Morocco, Venezuela, Iraq, Armenia, France, South Africa, Spain, Egypt, Niger, Libya, Georgia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Malawi, Yemen, Panama, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Benin, Pakistan, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Chad, and Nigeria.
Also speaking in the discussion was the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Nazila Ghanea, which started in previous meetings. A summary can be found here and here.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Ghanea said the review of plans and policies needed to be reassessed, so that freedom of religion or belief was not denied to religions and beliefs that were not regionally recognised, and they were not denied autonomy. The recognition of the urgency to further strengthen the freedom of religion or belief around the world was appreciated, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, as well as against Sikhs, Baha’is, and many others. Freedom of religion or belief was not for export - it was also for at home, for citizens and non-citizens alike. The next report to be presented would take a grass-roots view of the freedom of religion or belief. Future reports would address freedom of religion or belief and the prohibition of torture, and freedom of religion or belief and refugees and migrants.
In the discussion on freedom of religion or belief, speakers among other things, reiterated their support for the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and thanked her for her engagement. Many speakers said they condemned all discrimination and persecution based on religion or belief and were committed to protecting the rights of all people to adopt, manifest, change or leave any religion or belief. Speakers highlighted the steady increase in incidents of discrimination, hatred and violence based on religion, particularly against Muslim individuals and communities, as dangerous and unacceptable. Many speakers strongly condemned the rising trend of Islamophobia and denounced the incidents of desecration and burning of the Holy Quran, as well as the destruction of religious sites. They also noted that religious beliefs were sometimes used to fuel conflict. Some speakers also deemed attacks on Judaism and Jewish people to be detestable acts.
Speaking in the discussion were Kazakhstan, Italy, Malta, Niger, Holy See, Georgia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Australia, Mauritania, Malawi, Croatia, Namibia, Yemen, State of Palestine, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Romania, Ireland, Iran, Ukraine, Ghana, Cambodia, Lebanon, Belarus, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and Libya.
Also speaking were Commission nationale indépendante des droits de l'homme du Burundi , and National Human Rights Committee of Qatar, as well as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, World Evangelical Alliance, Alliance Defending Freedom, World Jewish Congress, Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience , Swedish Association for Sexuality Education, British Humanist Association, Humanists International, Conscience and Peace Tax International, and Minority Rights Group.
The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-second regular session can be found here.
The next meeting of the Council will be on Tuesday, 14 March at 3 p.m., when it will conclude the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. It will then start an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on torture, followed by an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
The interactive dialogue with Nazila Ghanea, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, started in previous meetings and a summary can be found here and here.
Discussion
In the discussion, many speakers reiterated their support for the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and thanked her for her engagement. It was welcome that within the report, concepts of the multilateral human rights system were drawn from religious and cultural systems across the globe, rather than those that were exclusively “Western”. Speakers said the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief, including the safeguard of religious heritage, was a priority.
Some speakers maintained that religious or belief institutions should have the freedom to manage their own affairs, including the freedom to choose their religious leaders, priests and teachers, in line with their practices, convictions and autonomy. It was also important to ensure the right of religious institutions to autonomously define their own beliefs and institutional structure, without coercion. Some speakers noted that it was also important to ensure that the right to conscientious objection was ensured; while the manifestation of religious beliefs may be limited in certain situations, this should never be extended to any form of coercion to act against one’s beliefs.
Many speakers condemned all discrimination and persecution based on religion or belief, and were committed to protecting the rights of all people to adopt, manifest, change or leave any religion or belief. No expression of religion or religious values could be considered authentic if it promoted hatred, violence, discrimination or conflict, and authorities had a responsibility to address these acts. Some speakers said there were alarming examples of violent disregard for religious freedom and tolerance. Extremist threats posed a severe threat to the world.
Religion or belief should not be considered as grounds for violence or conflict against persons or groups. Speakers highlighted the steady increase in incidents of discrimination, hatred and violence based on religion, particularly against Muslim individuals and communities, as dangerous and unacceptable. Many speakers strongly condemned the rising trend of Islamophobia, and denounced the incidents of desecration and burning of the Holy Quran, as well as the destruction of religious sites. They also noted that religious beliefs were sometimes used to fuel conflict. Some speakers also deemed attacks on Judaism and Jewish people to be detestable acts.
Many speakers called on the international community to ensure and promote interfaith peace, harmony and the idea of mutual respect. Speakers said they would continue to promote dialogue and cooperation among different religious leaders and communities. States were called on to adopt measures to promote the protection of places of worship and to take measures in cases where they were vulnerable to vandalism. Education and anti-discrimination laws that prohibited hate speech and incitement to violence based on religion or belief were important steps in promoting mutual understanding and respect. States should cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, including by responding promptly to letters of allegations and urgent appeals, and by extending standing invitations for country visits.
How could States best collaborate with international organizations, civil society and other partners to support the positive human rights contributions of faith-based actors? What priority issues would be addressed during the Special Rapporteur’s mandate?
Concluding Remarks
NAZILA GHANEA, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said the review of plans and policies needed to be reassessed, so that freedom of religion or belief was not denied to religions and beliefs that were not regionally recognised, and they were not denied autonomy. Freedoms were denied to civil society organizations and human rights protectors, and they were key to the freedom of religion or belief. The non-recognised could be denied identification cards, forced to live in an environment of fear and surveillance. The statements of delegations disassociating themselves from hate speech and acts contrary to freedom of expression and opinion were statements of repudiation and distancing from such acts; they concurred with the Istanbul Process follow-up procedure, among others.
The recognition of the urgency to further strengthen freedom of religion or belief around the world was appreciated, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, as well as against Sikhs, Baha’is, and many others. Some delegations asked about follow-up and cooperation on various topics, including the Universal Periodic Review recommendations that were outstanding. Ms. Ghanea said she was committed to cooperation and joint action where appropriate, with a gender perspective, with all national and international organizations, as well as many others. Freedom of religion or belief was not for export - it was also for at home, for citizens and non-citizens alike. The next report to be presented would take a grass-roots view of the freedom of religion or belief. Future reports would address freedom of religion or belief and the prohibition of torture, and freedom of religion or belief and refugees and migrants.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism
Report
The Council has before it the report by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, on the human rights implications of the development, use and transfer of new technologies in the context of counter-terrorism and countering and preventing violent extremism (A/HRC/52/39).
Introduction of Report
FIONNUALA NÍ AOLÁIN, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said the focus of her annual report was the impact of the development, use, and transfer of new technologies in the context of countering terrorism and preventing and countering violent extremism. She presented the report of her country visit to Maldives. She also pointed out the lack of sufficient budgetary resources made available to the mandate.
In her report, Ms. Ní Aoláin positively acknowledged the capacity of new technologies to positively transform lives and to enhance the full realisation of human rights, equality and dignity for human beings, as well as the significant potential that new technologies had to address human rights lacunae for the most marginalised and vulnerable. However, she also pointed out the risks posed by new technological advancements, particularly those developed with the stated aim of advancing security and countering terrorism. Her report highlighted three trends that characterised the use of new technologies in counter-terrorism and preventing and countering violent extremism. Today she addressed in detail one of those trends – the way in which new technologies initially deployed by reference to exceptional circumstances were under-regulated as a consequence, and rapidly moved from marginal applications to general ones.
By exposing the challenges of counter-terrorism exceptionalities in legal and political systems, her report illuminated the ways in which counter-terrorism and security were frequently used to provide political and legal justifications, or cover for the adoption of high-risk and highly intrusive technologies. Counter-terrorism had been the foil, muse and cover for making the case for high-risk technologies, and the cost to the world’s greater collective freedom had been immense. Counter-terrorism data collection must come with national legislation that protected the rights of those, essentially all, whose data was being collected, used, transferred and stored. Data protection legislation should be seen as a fundamental right in the digital age. There must also be, among other things, a moratorium on the sale, transfer, and use of lethal autonomous weapons systems while the international community worked toward a global ban.
The Special Rapporteur said her visit to Maldives was marked by cooperation, positive engagement, and a commendable openness. She commented on the positive advances in the penal system in Maldives, the evident leadership shown by Maldives as a climate-impacted country, and the ongoing pursuit and entrenchment of its democratic transition. She made some specific positive recommendations, including strongly recommending that concrete movement on further repatriation took place, which was urgently needed for Maldivian children and women from the current realities for persons arbitrarily deprived of liberty in northeast Syria. She supported strengthening the existing legal capacity to address the challenges of violent extremism conducive to terrorism in a sustained and consistent way.
Statement by Country Concerned
Maldives , speaking as a country concerned, strongly condemned and denounced all acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and had adopted several policies and legislative amendments, and established institutional bodies to improve the national response to threats of terrorism. The National Counter Terrorism Centre was established in 2016 as the national focal point on all counter terrorism matters. A new Associations Act in 2022 aimed to strengthen the governance of civil society and non-governmental organizations. The Government had also undertaken efforts to strengthen the criminal justice system, including through the enactment of a new Evidence Act, which set out rules of evidence that were applicable in criminal, as well as civil proceedings. Despite the Government’s commitment, the country was faced with several challenges, including lack of financial resources and technical expertise. Therefore, Maldives looked forward to engaging closely with the Special Rapporteur and all international and regional partners to build national capacity to address the issues identified in the report of the Special Rapporteur.
Discussion
In the discussion, some speakers thanked the Special Rapporteur for her report, saying they agreed that although new technologies had many promises, they were dangerous. Many speakers appreciated the Special Rapporteur for her contribution to the promotion of human rights in countering terrorism over the course of her six-year mandate, which was drawing to a close this summer. Some speakers said they disagreed with the views of the Special Rapporteur regarding certain countries. She had turned a blind eye to basic facts, which showed that she was selective in her mandate and based her report on false information.
Some speakers emphasised the destructive impact of terrorism on nations and its ability to erase progress made by societies, particularly in the economic and developmental spheres. Terrorism contributed to the destabilisation of societies and hindered the full enjoyment of human rights, including the fundamental right to life. Some speakers noted the suffering caused by indiscriminate terrorist attacks, and paid tribute to the victims and survivors of these attacks. Terrorist groups continued to evolve, exploiting cyberspace, targeting vulnerable groups, spreading extremist narratives, and enhancing the lethality of attacks.
Many speakers reaffirmed their firm position against terrorism and extremism, and supported international efforts to combat terrorism and dry up its sources of financing. It was the responsibility of States to protect against the detrimental effects of terrorism and ensure the promotion and protection of human rights for all citizens. This could be achieved by adopting necessary policies and measures in accordance with relevant international obligations and the rule of law. States were called on to work together to confront the threat of terrorism in all its forms. Ensuring the full respect for human rights and the rule of law was crucial in efforts to counter terrorism. Any measure taken to counter terrorism needed to comply with international law and should not unduly restrict civic space.
Speakers shared the Special Rapporteur’s concern that the misuse of new technologies could have serious negative impacts on the enjoyment of human rights, even if the intention was to prevent acts against civilian populations. It was vital to address and mitigate the human rights risks associated with these technologies. States needed to ensure that when using new technologies like artificial intelligence, companies from the technology sector acted with due diligence. Some speakers expressed concern that the fight against terrorism could be used to fuel hatred and undermine fundamental rights.
Some speakers emphasised that concerted international efforts in combatting terrorism had benefited from new technologies. Technology, including biometrics data sharing and drones, had provided benefits, particularly in intelligence, surveillance, and targeting. The international community could not afford to be second in a race towards a technological edge to combat terrorism. Other speakers called for a balanced approach when it came to the use of technologies. The use of new technologies by States should uphold obligations under international law.
Speakers asked the Special Rapporteur about measures which could be taken to better assess the human rights implications of new technologies in the context of counter-terrorism? How could States work with business enterprises to deliver robust oversight of new technologies in the counter-terrorism spheres? What more could be done by States to ensure that human rights were respected in the deployment of new technologies when it came to countering terrorism? What measures could be taken to prevent the access of new technologies by terrorist groups?
Intermediate Comments
FIONNUALA NÍ AOLÁIN, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said with regard to civic space and civil society, she was concerned for the wide-ranging effect of digital targeting of these groups, as well as others, including ordinary citizens who wished to participate in political affairs, and were targeted under the banner of combatting terrorism. The misuse of these measures did not serve the global community well - it did not make it safer to target civil society, and she would report on these measures fully in a later report. With regard to the victims of terrorism, these did not need sympathy - what they needed was law, human rights ingrained and hardwired into national domestic legislation, and it was critical to move beyond simple solidarity to recognise their rights to remedy and support at the national level. There should be support for the Victim’s Fund at an international level.
With regard to repatriation, the urgency of repatriating children, men and women from northeast Syria continued: some countries had made progress, but they must do better, as there was a long-term security, humanitarian and human rights challenge growing in the detention facility there. It was particularly important that the repatriation of children occur consistently with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. With regard to drones, they needed to be regulated at the domestic level, and surveillance footage should be subject to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee. The implication of the use of drones for citizens was immense. If counter-terrorism was not done in compliance with human rights law, this was not good counter-terrorism, it was in fact creating the conditions for more violence in societies, with greater threats, and greater challenges.
Discussion
In the continuing discussion, some speakers said terrorism constituted a serious threat to global peace and security and recognised the damage caused by this scourge. Speakers outlined their national commitments to counter terrorism efforts, as responsible members of the international community. The international community had mobilised its efforts to criminalise terrorism, prevent radicalisation, and suppress its financing, as well as combat all its manifestations in accordance with the law and with full respect for human rights. Regional efforts to combat terrorism and its sources of financing were being pursued.
Some speakers were concerned by the frequency with which security and counter-terrorism imperatives were used as pretexts to validate intrusive technologies that undermined human rights, especially those of vulnerable and marginalised groups. Some speakers said that biometric and surveillance technology, drones and artificial intelligence were being used to restrict and violate human rights around the world. Speakers agreed with the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, highlighting the application of human rights due diligence, the establishment of a moratorium on certain technologies, and a global ban on autonomous weapon systems.
It was important that while employing all means, including new technologies, in counter-terrorism efforts, the fundamentals for the respect of human rights should not be devalued or lost in the process. As outlined by the Special Rapporteur, there was a need to pass comprehensive domestic legislation protecting individual rights and group rights in the collection of data premised on national security, counter-terrorism, violent extremism or extremism grounds. The use of new and emerging technologies could be veritable tools to prevent and counter terrorist activities if they were deployed in full compliance with human rights law.
Some speakers noted that the respect for human rights should not be an excuse to support terrorist groups by the same countries that imposed inhumane sanctions on developing countries under the pretext of terrorism and deprived them of many economic opportunities. At the same time, these countries gave safe haven to terrorist groups in the name of protecting and promoting human rights. Some speakers described unilateral coercive measures imposed on the targeted States, as 'economic terrorism' which had caused the violation of basic human rights of populations in the States concerned. It was highly concerning that some States had incorporated terrorism within their State policies through blatant disregard for international treaties.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
HRC23.027E