Human rights in a world of terror

The International Advisory Commission of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (2007) brought out a report, titled: Stamping Out Rights: The Impact of Anti-Terrorism Laws on Policing. The report pertains to human rights situation in Commonwealth countries, with specific focus upon the infringement of human rights by several state institutions, using a plethora of anti-terrorism laws and counter-terrorism measures. It provides an analysis of international security framework and regional counter-terrorism cooperation counterpoised against the overarching human rights framework and its regional expressions. It also highlights trends in national legislative responses and draws upon ground realities of the dimensions of the exercise of police powers in the light of anti-terrorism laws, and discusses the impact upon and the need to strengthen accountability. South Asian scenario In Sri Lanka and in India’s north-eastern states, both army and paramilitary forces have been mobilised to respond to insurgents. In doing so, they have extended their authority and are found to be performing the tasks usually reserved for civilian police, such as the maintenance of law and order, day-to-day criminal investigations, arrests and prosecutions. The Assam Rifles, a paramilitary force in India’s north-east, has officers who have been implicated in numerous abuses, including extra-judicial killings. Both police and military share counter-terrorism responsibilities in Pakistan under the current regime. The Anti-Terror Act provides a procedure to call in the army to control and prevent terrorism. There is growing concern over the 'cash for captives' arrangement (financial incentives for capture of terrorism suspects by local police) in Pakistan, which leads to arbitrary arrest and detention without any evidential basis. There is also suspicion of involvement of foreign agents in torture and inhumane practices during interrogation. Bangladesh's Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) is often utilised to suppress opposition and political dissent through the use of arbitrary and excessive force. Initially formed to deal with breakdown of law and order, the RAB’s mandate has now been extended to include terrorism. Many laws in South Asia grant police de facto immunity from prosecution – especially when they are involved in 'anti-terrorist' activity. In the name of fighting terrorism Both terrorism and the fear of terrorism is now a growing global phenomenon, with awareness heightened through sustained international attention especially in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States of America. These attacks not only magnified the visibility, severity and symbolism of the terrorist threat, impacting public perception of terrorism, but also galvanised an extremely powerful international actor to drive the global community to take sustained action against terrorism. While there is a long and varied history to anti-terrorism, with measures ranging from national frameworks and counter-terrorism conventions of the United Nations since the 1960s (As many as 13 international counter-terrorism conventions and numerous resolutions) as well as emerging bilateral and cross-border and regional instruments, the new responses emphasise two major legal elements – control of financing of terrorism through tighter international monetary mechanisms; and security by force. The fact that there is no legal definition of terrorism, has led to enactment of inconsistent national definitions that provide a wide scope of application of anti-terrorist laws. These laws are especially open to abuse in light of increased state and police power through amendment of existing laws and enactment of new legislations. This changing face of policing increases potential, scope and severity of human rights abuses. It is seriously impacting upon people’s inalienable rights including the right to life, the right to freedom from torture, the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom of expression, etc. 'Counter-terrorism' has provided a blanket for harsh state reactions with little justification or legal validity. In a large number of cases there is an increase in police powers and an extension of police discretion, accompanied by the dilution of due process, as well as of accountability and transparency on the part of the police and the military. Enhanced latitude enjoyed by the police in pre-trial stages of investigation, arrest, interrogation and detention has limited the rights of accused. As a result, we often witness instances of enforced disappearance, torture, extra-judicial killings, and so forth. Policing is increasingly getting militarised. Joint operations between police and intelligence, military and paramilitary forces, have blurred important boundaries between civilian policing and military functions. Police powers have also been granted to a wide range of security, intelligence and border control agencies. Another problematic aspect is the wearing down of external accountability and the rupturing of internal coherence and stability of police organisations due to the operation of specially trained police units focusing on counter-terrorism. Torture is universally prohibited under all circumstances. Until recently torture was condemned as a gross violation of human rights. The erosion of human rights however is most visible in the dilution of the prohibition on torture. A most disturbing development has been the reinforcement of existing norms and practices by new anti-terrorism laws to create and perpetuate the use of torture. It is becoming common and even endemic to many police forces where cultures of impunity prevail. Thus counter-terrorism measures themselves have become a source of violence and insecurity – undermining human rights, due process, and the rule of law (especially in terms of national and international safeguards established to protect people against the abuse of state power). Upholding human rights This situation also allows for the enhancement of undemocratic policing in terms of cultures of authoritarianism, and unaccountable and alienated police personnel. The construct of the bigger picture is against a context wherein human rights are seen as oppositional to objectives of security and a barrier to counter-terrorism, whereby the state appears at war with human rights and the people are victims of both terrorism and of state practices. The case for upholding human rights in the face of terrorist threats is built upon the understanding that there is nothing inherent to counter-terrorism that allows for the undermining of human rights, beyond limitations and derogations permitted in international law. The framework provided by human rights laws and directives should be used as a reference to set standards for or direct police and other counter-terrorism action. There is a need for legal clarity to define boundaries of lawful police action and restrict arbitrary use of power, along with ensuring police accountability, towards democratic policing built upon respect for rule of law and human rights standards.

User comments

There are no comments

 Printable version