Annual Report - National Human Rights Commission

Annexure 16
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○
At the beginning of the 20 th century, studies have indicated that the percentage of civilians killed
during conflicts was about five percent as compared to 90 percent at the end of the 20 th century,
with disproportionate impact on women and children. As the events in the former Yugoslavia
and Rwanda have shown, gender-based violence in conflict often carries a political and symbolic
message. So devastating is its effect that rape, enforced prostitution and trafficking are now
included in the definition of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The next question and a vexed one, is: How do or should democratic States which adhere to the
Rule of Law and respect basic human rights deal with this menace?
Undoubtedly, the spectre of terrorism is haunting many countries of the world. It has acquired a
sinister dimension. The terrorist threats that we are facing are now on an unprecedented global
scale. But it must be remembered that the fundamental rationale of anti-terrorism measures has
to be to protect human rights and democracy. Counter terrorism measures should, therefore, not
undermine democratic values, violate human rights and subvert the Rule of Law. Consequently,
the battle against terrorism should be carried out in keeping with international human rights
obligations and the basic tenets of the Rule of Law. No doubt “the war on terrorism” has to be
relentlessly fought but that should be done without going over-board and in effect declaring war
on the civil liberties of the people. The protection and promotion of human rights under the Rule
of Law is essential in prevention of terrorism. If human rights are violated in the process of
combating terrorism, it will be self defeating. It is imperative that the essential safeguards of due
process and fair trial should not be jettisoned. We should emphasize that basic human rights and
more particularly Economic, Social and Cultural Rights must always be protected and not
derogated from.
Our experience shows that the rubric of counter-terrorism can be misused to justify acts in support
of political agendas, such as the consolidation of political power, elimination of political
opponents, inhibition of legitimate dissent. Labeling adversaries as terrorists is a notorious
technique to de-legitimize political opponents. It is during anxious times that care has to be taken
that state does not take recourse to bend the Rule of Law to accommodate popular sentiment for
harsh measures against suspected criminals. An independent judiciary and the existence of an
effective human rights institution are indispensable imperatives for protection of fundamental
human rights in all situations involving counter-terrorism measures. It provides vital safeguards
to prevent abuse of counter - terrorism measures. Counter- terrorism or anti-terrorism measures
must, therefore, always conform to international human rights obligations.
In addressing the Security Council on 18 th January 2002, the Secretary-General stated:
“While we certainly need vigilance to prevent acts of terrorism, and firmness in condemning and
punishing them, it will be self-defeating if we sacrifice other key priorities – such as human
rights – in the process”
320
National Human Rights Commission Annual Report - 2004-2005
AR-Chapter-1-19-10-6-06.p65
340
7/17/06, 6:31 PM