social, humanitarian and cultural committee (sochum)
The Third Committee of the General Assembly, known as the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee (SOCHUM), is a United Nations body that focuses on a broad spectrum of topics regarding the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Essentially guided by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, this Committee has a wide range of action, and the variety of issues in the social and cultural framework generates collaboration with various organizations (UNESCO, FAO and UNICEF, for instance) that improve the implementation of the Committee's resolutions. Having all UN Member States represented within it, SOCHUM is a forum where negotiation and exchange of experiences between member States is enhanced.
Topic Area A: Avoiding Human Rights Abuses in the Name of Counterterrorism Measures
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, although recent events in the world have changed the actions taken by governments from a domestic to an international approach. It is important to bear in mind that the entire twentieth century - especially from the decade after the end of the cold war - was deeply marked by terrorist actions.
It has always been argued that terrorism is a weapon of the weak against the strong, this being the principle of the asymmetric war. Taking that into account, it is possible to conclude that terrorism shows different types of operations. Variants of terror strategy can be found in India, Russia, Ireland, Spain, El Salvador, Algeria, Colombia, Uganda, and South Africa - just to mention some countries that have been dealing with terrorism for decades. It is also remarkable that "Asia and Africa each suffered far more attacks and casualties than the entire rest of the world put together." (TILLY, 2006)
The relevance of the issue of compatibility between counterterrorism and human rights is patent. The Security Council Resolution 1373 was adopted on September 28th, 2001, establishing the Counterterrorism Committee. The document affirms the importance of States to "take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights before granting refugee states, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum seeker has not planned, facilitated or participated in the commission of terrorist acts"(UNITED NATIONS, 2001).
When employing counterterrorism measures, many States commit basic human rights abuses, including frequent invocation of exceptional powers and limitations that are not always justified. Some aspects need special attention such as the respect for private life, deeply affected by the investigation methods that interfere with the privacy and the use of a person's data by the State; the restriction of freedom of expression and access to information and the State interference on the media; the restriction to the right to own private property and the indefinite detention without charge of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism.
In short, many countries face significant challenges in protecting their citizens against the threat of terrorism and, consequently, disobey the relevant legal framework regarding persons who are suspects of involvement with terrorist acts. Thus, there is the inauguration of a new kind of criminal process that has "increasingly displaced traditional methods of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing people who have engaged in conduct that is subject to criminal penalties - whether or not that conduct is considered terrorism" (PARRY, 2007).
There should be no contradiction between effective counterterrorism measures and protection of human rights. It must be assumed, then, that the dignity of all the people must be protected even in urgent events, especially avoiding injustice to a specific group. When fighting terrorism, States should pay further attention to the effects of the adopted counterterrorism measures and to the risk of damage to the rule of law. Delegates at SOCHUM are called upon to discuss how to avoid the abuses on human rights under the international agenda on counterterrorism measures.
Topic Area B: Detainees in the context of terrorism: violations of the legal framework.
One of the most relevant consequences of the fight against terrorism is the social claim for short-termed and urgent measures. In this context, some States' interventions might be equivocally considered adequate, even if they clearly violate the most fundamental human rights. This is particularly observed when it comes to the detention of persons captured or arrested because of suspected involvement with terrorism: without an appropriate legal framework and full respect to relevant procedural safeguards, many people are deprived of dignity.
The question of whether the "global war on terror" is really a war becomes fundamental because its possible conclusions affect directly how the conflict is seen: as an armed one - which implies legal obligations to the parties involved - or not. In this regard, the Geneva Conventions, which are not totally adapted to global terrorism and its repression, are applied only to certain specified circumstances. The common claim that the Geneva Conventions do not protect terrorists "might mean either that the Conventions do not apply at all to military operations directed against terrorist organizations or that individual terrorists do not fall into one of the categories of protected persons" (JINKS, 2006).
It is possible to point out several abuses inflicted upon men and women held in the context of terrorism: "interrogation techniques including hooding, stripping detainees naked, subjecting them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, and deprivation of sleep" while incarcerated, configuring a routine that exposes people to pain and humiliation and eventually results in deaths under questionable circumstances (HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, 2008). The presence of military forces - that sometimes have no formation on the principles of law - in prisons increases the chances of inappropriate actions, especially when using intelligence-gathering methods, including aggressive interrogation.
The way interrogatories are conducted is fundamental to the "War on Terror": for some governments, this war is to be won with the localization of terrorists and the discovery of information that could help preventing future attacks (HERSH, 2004). For this reason, some States started to defend that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should not be completely prohibited, as in some exceptional circumstances they may be justified and even necessary. The fundamental point is that counterterrorism should not impose a different treatment to prisoners: those incarcerated for terrorist activities cannot be submitted to restrictions that are more severe than those applied to civil prisoners, despite the difficulty States face in protecting their communities from terrorist violence.
Closely related to the treatment dedicated to detainees is the right of any person to a fair trial. Although this is an internationally recognized fundamental right, after the intensification of the fight against terrorism - and, mostly, since this struggle has been defined as "War on Terror" - there has been intention on some parts to compromise this principle in the name of security. But should fair trial standards be sacrificed to prosecute terrorism?
The right to a fair trial is guaranteed by both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of Armed Conflict. Other provisions of the Covenant are the protection of the defendant's right to be presumed innocent; right to be informed promptly of the charges; to be tried without undue delay; to be tried in his presence; to defend himself in person or through legal assistance; to communicate with counsel; to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him; not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt; and to have any conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law (WEISSBRODT, 2008).
In other words, every detainee, in the context of terrorism, must receive all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by the United Nations, once principles of legality and the rule of law require the respect of a fair trial: all human rights bodies must pay attention to the violation of a number of these guarantees. Delegates at UFRGSMUN 2008 are called upon to discuss how abuses on prisons can be avoided and controlled by the international community and also how international humanitarian law applies to the fight against terrorism.
References:
CEUPPENS, Frédéric; HARVEN, Antoine Gouzée de. Couter-Terrorism versus Human Rights: the key to compatibility. Available at http://www.fidh.org/spip.php?article2784 Last access in February 29 2008.
CHOMSKY, Noam. Power and Terror. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003
DARKEN, R; SHAPIRO, J. Homeland Security: a new strategic paradigm. In: BAYLIS, J (org). Strategy in the Contemporary World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 295-311.
DRUMBL, Mark. The Expressive Value of Prosecuting and Punishing Terrorists: Hamdan, the Geneva Conventions, and International Criminal Law. In: George Washington Law Review, Vol. 75, 2007. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=954942 Last access in February 20 2008.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Rules on absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment remain unchanged. Available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/european-court-human-rights-rules-absolute-prohibition-torture-and-ill-t Last access in March 02 2008.
HERSH, Seymour. Cadeia de Comando: a guerra de Bush do 11 de setembro às torturas de Abu Ghraib. Rio de Janeiro: Ediouro, 2004.
HOBSBAWM, Eric. Globalization, Democracy and Terrorism. London: Little, Brown, 2007.
JINKS, Derek. The Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the Global War on Terrorism. In: Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 46, 2006. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=897591. Last access in February 8 2008.
MELLO, Sérgio Vieira de. To the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council. 21 out 2002. Available at: http://www.un.org/sc/ctc/HC.htm. Last access in February 10 2008.
PARRY, John. Terrorism and the New Criminal Processes. In: William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 15, p. 765, 2007. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=938179 Last access in February 27 2008.
SADAT, Leila. Extraordinary Rendition, Torture and Other Nightmares from the War on Terror. In: Washington University School of Law Faculty Working Papers. Paper N. 07-08-01, ago, 2007. Available at: http://law.wustl.edu/Faculty/index.asp?ID=655 Last access in February 18 2008.
STANDARD MINIMUM RULES FOR THE TREATMENT OF PRISIONERS. Available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp34.htm Last access in February 10 2008.
TILLY, Charles. The Politics of Collective Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
UNITED NATIONS. Resolution 1373 2001. Available at: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/557/43/PDF/N0155743.pdf?OpenElement. Last access in 5 February 2008.
WEISSBRODT, David. Fair Trials and Terrorism. Available at: http://www.amnestyusa.org/The_Right_to_a_Fair_Trial/David_Weissbrodt/page.do?id=1104761&n1=3&n2=35&n3=835 Last access in February 22 2008.
Websites:
www.amnesty.org
www.hrw.org
www.icrc.org
www.un.org
