Annual Report - National Human Rights Commission

Annexure 16
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○
Speaking on terrorism, Ms. Mary Robinson the then United Nations Commissioner for Human
Rights, cautioned against the violation of human rights in the global ‘fixation’ with the war
against terrorism and said:
“ What must never be forgotten is that human rights are no hindrance to the promotion of
peace and security. Rather they are an essential element of any strategy to defeat terrorism.”
While dealing with some fundamental issues relating to terrorism in the Annual Report of 2001
she said:
“There should be three guiding principles for the world community: the need to eliminate
discrimination and build a just an tolerant world; the cooperation by all States against terrorism,
without using such cooperation as a pretext to infringe on human rights; and a Strengthened
commitment to the rule of law.”
“… true respect for human life must go hand in with securing justice”, and that “the best
tribute we can pay to the victims of terrorism and their grieving families and friends, is to
ensure that justice, and not revenge, is served”.
It must, therefore, stand as a caution that in times of distress, the shield of necessity and national
security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability
where the same affect enjoyment of human rights. In times of international hostility and
antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and judicial, must be prepared to exercise
their authority to protect all citizens from petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused.
Indeed, in the face of terrorism, there can be no doubt that the State has not only the right, but
also the duty, to protect itself and its people against terrorist acts and to bring to justice those who
perpetrate such acts. The manner in which a State acts to exercise this right and to perform this
duty must be in accordance with the Rule of Law. The Supreme Court of India has, in DK Basu
vs. State of West Bengal, [jt 1997(1) SC 1] cautioned:
“State terrorism is no answer to combat terrorism. State terrorism would only provide legitimacy
to terrorism: that would be bad for the State, the community and above all for the rule of law.
The State must, therefore, ensure that the various agencies deployed by it for combating terrorism
act within the bounds of law and not become law unto themselves”
The National Human Rights Commission of India is of the firm view that a proper observance
of human rights is not a hindrance to the promotion of peace and security. Rather, it is an essential
element in any worthwhile strategy to preserve peace and security and to defeat terrorism. The
purpose of anti-terrorism measures must therefore be to protect democracy, rule of law and
human rights, which are fundamental values of our society and the core values of the Constitution.
It is wrong to be selective about violation of human rights and the perpetrators of terrorism.
National Human Rights Commission Annual Report - 2004-2005
321
AR-Chapter-1-19-10-6-06.p65
341
7/17/06, 6:31 PM