UN Geneva - Multimedia Newsroom : OHCHR Press Conference - Special Rapporteur Ben Saul on Human Rights and Counterterrorism

Good afternoon, everyone.

And welcome to this press conference today we have with us, Mr Ben Saul,

who is a special rapporteur on counterterrorism.

We will begin with opening remarks from the special rapporteur,

after which we will begin and open up the floor to questions.

With that, I hand over to Mr

thank you very much.

And I'm delighted to launch my first report as special rapporteur

before the Human Rights Council. Uh, today,

uh, regrettably, my report, uh,

documents that the past two decades of prolific global counterterrorism efforts

have not been matched by an equally robust commitment to human rights.

Uh, counterterrorism, Uh, measures are

strewn with human rights violations, including unlawful killings,

arbitrary detention, torture, unfair trial,

privacy breaches from mass surveillance and

the criminalization of freedoms of expression,

assembly, association and political participation.

This misuse of counterterrorism measures

not only violates the rights of suspected criminals,

but can also jeopardise the rights of the innocent.

Uh, in many places, there has been a rampant,

uh uh,

weaponization of overly broad terrorism definitions

and offences against civil society,

uh, against human rights defenders, activists, political opponents,

journalists, minorities and students.

Uh,

counterterrorism financing measures have restricted

legitimate nonprofit activities and,

uh, impeded humanitarian relief.

Uh, unjustified states of emergency continue to undermine human rights.

Uh, excessive military violence in response to terrorism, uh,

also destroys human rights,

including through violations of international humanitarian law

and international criminal law.

Uh, states use violence across borders, uh, even when it is not justified.

Under the international law of self defence,

many states have also failed to seriously address the root causes of terrorism,

including the state's own violations of human rights

and impunity for these state violations is endemic

and is driving more grievance and more violence.

Uh uh. My first report today, uh, announces my priorities over the next three years.

Um, these include ensuring that, uh,

regional organisations respect human rights when countering terrorism.

Uh,

that coercive administrative measures to prevent

terrorism comply with human rights.

Uh, that non state actors involved in counterterrorism respect human rights,

including technology finance, uh, security companies,

armed groups and nonprofits,

uh, that new technologies to counterterrorism are effectively regulated,

including spyware, facial recognition, uh, a

artificial intelligence.

I I I'm keen to ensure that states are held

accountable for large-scale violations of

human rights resulting from counterterrorism.

Uh, and then, finally, that victims of terrorism, uh,

also receive full and effective remedies.

Uh, over the next three years,

I'll also continue the efforts of my predecessor on

preventing the abuse of counterterrorism against civil society,

protecting the 70,000 people still arbitrarily detained in northeast Syria

in the context of the the war against, uh, Islamic state

protecting detainees and transferees from, uh, detention at Guantanamo Bay,

Cuba.

Uh, and ensuring that the United Nations itself, through all of its, uh,

counterterrorism bodies and other, uh, agencies, uh,

safeguards human rights in its counterterrorism work.

So in the current climate, uh, human rights in counterterrorism, uh,

are at increased risk because of rising authoritarianism,

surging domestic polarisation and extremism,

geopolitical competition

dysfunction in the Security Council,

Uh, and new tools, including social media, uh,

for fueling dehumanisation vilification, incitement, uh, and misinformation.

Double standards by major powers in the enforcement of human rights is

also eroding public confidence in the credibility of the international system.

States also must do better in funding the

protection of human rights in counter terrorism.

Uh, so my message, uh, in conclusion is to urge all states

to move beyond,

uh, the dominant rhetorical commitment to human rights,

Uh, and to instead place them at the heart of all of their counterterrorism, uh,

measures.

Uh, respecting human rights,

uh, not only makes counterterrorism more legitimate,

it also makes it more effective

because publics have confidence

that states are using their

counter terrorism measures in accordance with law

and with full respect for all individuals affected.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Soul. The special represent will now take questions.

Uh, please state your name and the outlet you work for.

Um, before I screen your question,

we'll begin with the questions from the room and then

move on to those of you joining us online.

Thank you.

I see no hands on in the room, so we'll start with, uh, Yuri,

a perv

from RIA

Novosti online. Thank you.

Yes, and thank you for taking my question. And thank you for this briefing.

I have two questions.

The first one is about what you said just now that the double standards of

the great powers with regard to the

application of human rights erode confidence in international

law. What countries are you talking about? Exactly? Because this is not something

which great powers to be more clearly are you talking about,

uh, in your report,

you mentioned the fact that the place of the USA

in the world has allowed them to seriously violate international law

without consequences for them. Is this the kind of double standards? You? Great.

Uh, can we say that after September 11th,

the United States

toted the very principle of international law

in its war against terrorism Still in force

today with drone strikes against sovereign states

without any mandates from the Security Council?

Numerous civilian casualties

following these strikes and the occupation of territories

are still today in Syria and Iraq.

And do you think that the situation in Gaza

today is the consequences of the US policy,

which the US is also covering in the secu security conceal?

Because Israel is saying that the war

in Gaza is against the terroristic organisation.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you. Um

uh, yes. So this is a thematic report.

So it's not a report about the performance of any particular countries.

Uh, so it's a a more general observation about what's happened, I think,

over the last 20 years in terms of, uh, countering terrorism.

Uh, I wouldn't say it's limited to any particular great power.

Uh, I mean, I think, uh, we've seen behaviour by by, uh,

a large number of powerful states, including,

uh, members, all members, frankly, of the Security Council,

Uh, who over over time have not respected human rights in their in their operations.

that includes, uh, their F, their foreign military operations against terrorism.

Uh, it includes domestic legal measures, Uh uh, to counterterrorism, uh,

through regular law enforcement and and so on.

Uh, but the point about all of this is that it does,

uh, fuel. Uh uh, further polarisation and discontent.

Um, because certain states are seen to be thwarting

um, uh, the the the will of the majority of the international community to to, uh,

to to to, uh, implement and enforce international law.

Uh, five states on the Security Council have a veto. Right. So they,

uh, have the capacity to do good in using,

uh, their power. Uh uh, uh, under chapter seven of the UN charter,

uh, to, uh, prevent situations, um, involving terrorism or or other violence from,

uh, from escalating.

Or they can exercise their vetoes to to stop international action.

Uh, and there are so many examples of that.

Uh, not only in a in a in a in a counterterrorism context,

uh, in relation to to Gaza. Uh,

look,

I and other special rapporteurs have consistently called on all

parties in that conflict to respect international humanitarian law.

Uh, international human rights law and international criminal Law.

Uh, it's clear that on October 7th and subsequently there were, uh,

very grave violations of international law by

Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups.

Uh, that continues today in the form of, uh, ongoing hostage taking, uh,

as well as occasional, uh, rocket fire after September 11th.

Indiscriminate, Not targeting military objectives, uh, likely to strike, uh,

civilians, uh, and therefore, uh, constitute war crimes.

Um, the Israeli response, of course, uh,

has has also not complied with

its obligations under international humanitarian law.

Uh, we've consistently highlighted that Israel,

uh, has not, uh, exercised, uh,

the the level of care in the protection

of civilians required by international humanitarian law.

Uh, that's manifest in,

uh

uh uh, at a minimum.

Uh uh.

Disproportionate attacks,

which cause excessive civilian casualties relative to the military advantage.

Indiscriminate attacks,

which don't sufficiently differentiate between military targets and civilians,

uh, through, for example, the the dropping of, uh, very large.

Uh uh, unguided munitions in densely populated urban areas.

Uh, A and and large numbers of the munitions.

A large proportion of the of the munitions used by Israel, uh,

have fallen into that into that category.

Uh, failure to to warn civilians. Denial of humanitarian relief.

Consequential, uh, likely starvation of the of the civilian population.

Uh uh, Arbitrary forced displacement.

Uh, not providing the necessary humanitarian conditions during displacement.

Um, so look there are there.

There have been lots of very well documented violations. Um, by Israel.

That's not to say that all of Israel's violence is is is unlawful.

And, um, certainly Israel has been taking,

uh, uh, certain steps in the targeting process and and, uh,

seeking legal advice and so on.

Uh, but the overwhelming impression is that

these are not isolated cases of violations,

but there is a kind of systematic non compliance, uh, in

relation to both the protection of civilians, uh, in the conduct of hostilities.

So in, in, in targeting,

Uh, but also, uh, in the, uh, uh, denial of, um, uh,

humanitarian relief necessary to sustain over two, what, 2.3 million people,

Um, in Gaza,

many of whom have been forced to to the verge of, uh, of starvation.

Thank you, Mrs.

Um, So we'll take the next question from Mr Antonio Broto from FA.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you very much. Uh, I would like you to elaborate a little more on the use of

an anti

terrorist legislation,

uh, to arrest the political dissidents in in in some countries.

And if you can give some examples of that.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you. So, um, uh, my, uh, predecessor wrote a major global study,

uh, on the, uh, misuse of counterterrorism laws against civil society. So,

um, she found that it's it's it's not, um, uh,

an issue confined to a particular or small number of countries.

This is something which is endemic in in many parts of the world.

Uh, and it it encompasses, you know, a AB a broad range of civil society.

I mean, it's it's not just political dissidents.

It's, um a you know, climate activists or

human rights defenders or students or or, in some cases, lawyers and even E.

Even judges. Uh uh uh.

It's, um, the use of counterterrorism financing laws to shutdown or restrict,

uh, the lawful operation of, uh, of non-government organisations of all kinds.

Religious, charitable,

uh, humanitarian. Uh uh. Etcetera.

Uh, so we issue individual communications, and we have, um,

O on the United Nations human rights database.

Uh, a long list of precisely these kinds of cases where,

um

uh, counterrorism laws have have been abused against, uh, all all kinds of, uh,

of of different categories.

Uh, in my, uh, dialogue with states this morning. Uh, for example,

uh, the case of Tunisia came up where,

um

uh you know, uh, emergency laws and decrees in Tunisia have been used, uh,

essentially to sack judges and,

uh, in, uh, pursue charges and, uh,

imprisonment against judges for for just doing their, you know,

their their their job as,

uh, officers of, uh, of the of of the court.

Uh, and these are kind of sackings on a mass basis.

Large numbers of of people subject to these kinds of, uh, legal, uh, proceedings.

Um, so there are Look, there are There are so many of these cases. Um

uh, that, um this is this is precisely why it's so, uh, so alarming.

Um uh,

because there there isn't any kind of

concerted push back from the international community

to bring pressure to bear on these states to reverse this. This kind of misuse

the messaging from from,

uh, much of the international community has been states must be, uh,

tough on on terrorists and repress repress, uh, terrorism.

Uh, but I think the pendulum has swung, uh, much too far, Uh,

in favour of repression without, uh, sufficiently balancing,

uh, the protection of human rights. Um uh uh by state officials.

Thank you. The next question.

Uh, Miss Catherine Fion

Combo

conga,

please.

Yes. Uh, good morning. Uh, my name is Katrin

Combo Kona

Fran

Din car.

Uh, French International TV.

in the list of people you mentioned that

have been victims of the misuse of counterterrorism,

Uh, I think you forgot journalists.

Uh, so I'd like to hear a bit more on on that, um, issue,

Uh, particularly as you know, um, in the context of September 11th,

everything started,

um, that in the name of conducting, um, infighting, uh, terrorism,

states started to conduct surveillance on journalists, wiretap journalists,

monitoring journalists,

and, uh, also arresting individuals. So what do you have to say? Uh, on that.

And also, if you could highlight a little bit more the aspects, um,

in European countries.

Um, yes. So look, I.

I do mention journalists in in my report, and, uh,

I think I did mention it in in opening remarks as well.

It it's, uh that's a very important category. That has CO, uh, come under pressure,

uh, from counterterrorism laws. Um,

you know, in the dialogue this morning, the the case of Jimmy Lai came up,

for example, a a proprietor of a major independent news outlet,

Uh, in Hong Kong, China,

uh, who has been arrested and charged on national security, Uh,

national security offences essentially as a way of of

shutting down the operation of of the independent media.

Um, so this is, you know, this is not, uh, an uncommon, uh, occurrence.

You mentioned spyware.

Um uh, and of course, that's been a a great concern in in many countries. This, um

uh, you know, secret use of of spyware to which, you know,

through tracking journalists and so on can expose, uh,

sources and lead to Reprisals against those sources

as well. One of the one of the problems is

a

lack of effective international and national

regulation of these kinds of technologies.

Coupled with, uh,

you know, private companies who make this software make make these,

uh, programmes,

uh, themselves not being, uh, very good at doing.

Uh, do you know, human rights due diligence in the kinds of, um,

uh, kinds of products that they produce and and sell to,

uh, to to to different actors, Uh, around the world. So we

you know, my my mandate is is very focused on, uh,

trying to come up with options for stronger international

regulation of those kinds of new technologies which,

uh, are routinely used against, uh, against journalists.

Um, uh, you know, I in some situations, of course, there's been, uh,

the direct targeting of journalists.

So, um,

you know, certain countries are are are are well known for having,

uh uh uh for being very dangerous places for for journalists.

And that's not just in active conflict zones. Um,

uh, you know, we we have seen, uh,

certain states seemingly deliberately targeting,

uh uh, media workers. Um uh, including in in recent conflicts.

Um, and and then, of course, um, you know censorship. And, um uh, online moderation.

I mean, there are lots of

interferences with the freedom of the media to report on its, uh,

Ooo on on all kinds of matters of public affairs.

Um, because of, um, restrictions on, uh, O on, um,

extremist speech or or or praising, Glorifying, Advocating terrorism.

Uh, etcetera.

Um uh, these have made it, you know, quite a difficult environment for, um

uh, for states to to to operate in,

um, I I'd also mentioned nontraditional media. So,

uh, one case, um, uh, which, of course, um, has has been of concern in the media,

is is the case of, uh, Julian Assange.

And that's a case which, um

uh, you know, the the the Wikileaks publisher.

Uh, that's a case which my mandate is watching closely,

uh, as, uh, as that trial, Um uh, moves, uh,

moves closer in in the current extradition proceeding between the UK and the US.

Thank you.

Uh, we have a question in the room.

Hi. Phoenix TV, uh, from Hong Kong.

I have a question that, um,

you know, the hot topic. It was after 911. during the 10 years

on

the issue. Uh, counterterrorist was still on the hot topic, but why now?

You launch this kind of report? Is that a good moment? Thank you.

Uh, sorry, I I'm not Could you just clarify your question?

I'm I'm not quite sure what you're asking. The

timing. What's the timing to launch your report now? Thank you.

Uh, yeah.

So, uh, well, to to explain, I I've just been appointed, So it's my job to to write, uh,

write reports and, um uh, I.

I write two a year. So one to the Human Rights Council. One to the General Assembly. Um

uh, and so that's that explains the the the the the the the timing.

Uh, I think, though it's it's also,

uh, quite a useful moment to reflect on the last two decades, right?

Of counterterrorism law. I mean, um,

initially after 911,

there was a huge rush to make legislation.

Uh, there was then a a kind of second wave after Isis emerged in 2012, 13.

And, uh, new issues like foreign fighters

uh uh, emerged. Um

uh, and and,

you know, people often thought, um, after these kind of initial, um,

tranches of legislative activism things would kind of settle down.

And if if countries went too far, that,

um, laws would be would be dialled back.

Um, III I don't think that's happened in in many parts of the world. I mean, I.

I think what we have seen is

the the security UN.

Security Council has been, uh,

constantly pushing states to adopt new counterterrorism measures

consistently over the the last two decades.

Um, and, uh, a And so you know,

more and more measures are are piled on at the at the national level.

Uh, and that happens.

Um

uh, regardless So,

the Security Council requires all countries

to adopt these counter terrorism measures regardless

of whether a particular country has an effective rule of law system,

whether it has an independent judiciary, whether,

uh, it respects and safeguards human rights.

Uh, and I think that's, um,

actually Inc an incredibly dangerous thing for the United Nations to keep doing

when there's no international, internationally agreed definition of terrorism.

Um, uh, the the the the UN counterterrorism bodies

are continuing to require states to to adopt laws regardless of

their history of misusing existing counterterrorism laws and regardless of,

uh, often,

uh, Uh, uh uh,

uh A dire lack of effective human rights safeguards

to control those measures and push back against them.

And and to ensure that,

the state's use of those powers, um, uh,

the state can be held accountable for for those kinds of misuses

we've then seen.

Um, in addition to terrorism,

this new concept of violent extremism being used as well in many countries,

uh, it's also undefined.

And yet, uh,

the UN is requiring states to take measures to respond to to those as well.

and it's, you know,

I I in a perfect world I I if if a state

has a great human rights and and rule of law system,

uh, then, you know, maybe, uh, uh, counterterrorism laws would would work. Um,

uh, in a manner consistent with with human rights. But that's not the world. Uh, uh.

That that's not, uh, the world in in in most parts of it.

Well, in in certainly, uh, a majority of countries, uh, around the world,

Uh, and even those countries with really effective, um, legal systems,

uh, still have serious human rights compliance problems, um,

in in relation to to counterterrorism.

So

uh, I do think it's been, uh,

although the Security Council has paid more attention

to human rights over over the years,

Uh, it has often been fairly rhetorical, and it hasn't been matched by,

uh,

specific requirements on states to do certain things

to protect human rights or the funding,

uh, of human rights.

Uh, in that process of of countering terrorism.

Thank you, Mr Saul.

Uh, there's a follow up question online from, uh, Miss Catherine Kion

Combo

conga.

Yes.

Uh, thank you for giving me the floor again.

Uh, sir, I'd like you to come back, um, on, um on on, Um,

please on what you said you mentioned,

um uh, previously to my question,

I'd like to see a little bit more

What? You are the recommendations that you've, uh, uh

formulated,

uh, towards, um, I would say Europe and European countries,

because P five are often under the spotlight,

Um, and other specific countries that are

in conflict. But for instance, in France,

uh, we had some journalists,

uh, that have been, um,

uh, taped, uh, followed. Um

um, in the name of state security.

Um, what kind of recommendation have you mentioned?

And also what about, um, your Cooper operation

with the EU or with Parliament?

Thank you.

Great. Thank you for the the question.

And, uh and And look, uh, just to clarify this report, um

uh, is my I So I've been in the job three months and the the the first report is always

setting out priorities for the next three years.

So this report itself does not yet have, uh, recommendations,

Uh, on any particular issues. It's It's more scoping What? I'm what I'm going to do.

Uh uh, as the as the job gets going over the over the next three years.

So it it it is a little bit, uh, early to have recommendations on on any substantive,

uh, issues.

Uh, having said that we, um of course,

uh, one part of the the the role of a special rapporteur is to receive, uh,

and address what we call individual communications

to to states, um,

they can be complaints we receive from victims of state violations of human rights.

Or they can be, um,

uh, assessments.

We conduct of, uh, counterterrorism laws,

policies practises in a in a particular government,

Um uh, in a particular country. So

um that's in part, a reactive process.

So if people in France want to bring complaints to the office,

they're welcome to do that.

And and that's then the context in which we can engage with the state.

Uh, or if there's, um let's say, new legislation,

uh, or old legislation which is being used problematically um

uh, in a in a new way.

Uh, then we can also take that up with, um with the particular country.

So we absolutely encourage

you If if you have, um, concerns about the treatment of journalists in France,

for example, or or in other European countries,

uh, then that would be the the usual way in which we would, um uh,

address those issues,

Uh, in terms of the EU. Uh, yes. Um,

So my my first report to the General Assembly in October will be about the

role of regional organisations in countering terrorism and

the extent to which they respect human rights

in the kinds of measures laws, etcetera that they adopt.

Uh, so the EU and the Council of Europe, uh, you know, are the are the two,

as well as OS CE, uh,

are bodies in Europe which we will be looking at closely in that context to

assess how well they've been doing in in respecting,

uh, human rights.

It'll also cover regional organisations from all kinds of other regions, uh,

around the world, uh, as well,

um, in terms of parliaments, um,

uh, yeah. I mean, we would engage parliaments, um,

in the context usually of draught legislation or new bills. So if we're, um

uh, uh concerned about the development of, you know, particular new legislation.

A good example is the Hong Kong National Security Law, which is,

uh, in draught form at the moment.

Um, then that's a kind of point at which, um uh, we could, uh,

make a submission or or brief parliamentarians?

Um, uh I mean, Tod today, for example, I'm I'm briefing, um,

uh, parliamentarians in the United Kingdom,

uh, about UK arms transfers to Israel in relation to the war in Gaza.

Uh, because we we have taken a position that we think, um

uh, continuing to export weapons and ammunition to Israel.

Uh,

given the clear risk of the use of those

weapons in violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza,

uh means that, uh,

states exporting those weapons, uh, would themselves be violating,

uh, their duty under international humanitarian law

to ensure respect for humanitarian law by other states.

And that means by not exporting arms to them, uh,

which would enable further violations, uh, to to take place.

Uh, so, yes, we we dialogue with parliamentarians, Uh, and we, uh,

engage formally on on legislative proposals as well.

Thank you. Um, there's a question from Mister John

Zaro.

Costas?

Yes. Good afternoon. Uh, asking this question for one of my outlets, The Lancet,

the medical journal.

I was wondering, Professor,

um, in your research have you come across situations where,

uh, member states have very good, uh, legislation on their statutes

concerning,

uh, counterterrorism and, uh, etcetera.

And at the same time,

they're exporting, um

uh,

mechanisms that I used to torture people that

are alleged to fall into the category of extremists

or alleged, uh,

terrorists. Thank you.

Uh,

so, um, just to clarify the question. So So you E exporting by exporting?

You mean, like,

deporting or or extraditing people to other countries to be tortured?

Is is that the question?

Wait. Yeah. No exporting. Uh uh

uh, equipment that is used for torture.

Uh, in a lot of the cases,

uh, there's not much transparency on the charges.

Uh, they're incognito. They're in, uh, so called, uh, black sites,

Uh, et cetera. So, on the one hand, there's very good legislation.

Uh uh, on the torture convention, but at the same time, you've got,

uh, parallel universe.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh, good. Good question.

And and, uh, and look, certainly the the bigger issue of, uh,

rendition of torture of terrorism suspects to other countries,

Uh, has been well covered by the by the mandate in the in the past.

Uh, but but on the the key part of your question, I I'd refer you to my colleague,

the special rapporteur on torture

who, uh, released her thematic report last week at the Human Rights Council,

which was precisely devoted to this question of,

um uh, torture. Um

uh, equipment, um, material, Uh, all the different, the different things. Tools?

Um, uh, which states, uh,

export to one another in a in a law enforcement context in which can be used in, um,

uh, in torture or cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment, Other ill treatment, uh,

in in detention.

Uh, so That's the That's the most up to date.

Um, source of of thinking about about that question.

Thank you.

Uh, now we have question from, uh,

Mr Nick Cumming Brook Bruce from the New York Times.

Yeah, thank you for taking this question.

you talked about the, um,

strong drift away from human

rights and counterterrorism practise internationally.

I wondered what your view of the, um,

role of the UN counterterrorism mechanisms and this might have been,

it's grown quite exponentially in recent years,

largely with the support of governments that have

a bad co, uh, human rights record.

And I wonder if you think it's been, uh, instrumental

by them to kind of help shift,

uh,

essentially the the standard of of

counterterrorism practise away from human rights.

Thank you.

Thank you. It's a It's a great question. And and yes, absolutely. The, um,

counterterrorism mechanisms have grown, uh, enormously in recent years.

Uh, I mean, there used to be the the Security Council sanctions committees,

plus the counterterrorism Executive,

Directorate and and Counterterrorism Committee,

uh, monitoring implementation of the Security Council resolutions.

Uh, but then in 2017, uh, the UN office of counterterrorism was added

uh, and has grown exponentially, as as you say, Um And then, of course,

UN office of drugs and Crime has always been there in in Vienna.

Uh,

but also this this other mechanism of the UN global

compact on counterterrorism of Of which I'm a member,

along with 46 other UN, mainly entities and a few a few others.

Um, and they have a, uh, a bunch of working groups which, um,

focus on a whole range of specific issues.

Uh, lots of technical assistance, capacity building, standard setting,

um, being driven by by those those bodies.

Uh, And then, of course, the UN Counterterrorism Centre,

part of the the Office of Counterterrorism.

Uh, now, uh, as well,

look, it's on influence of donors.

It's a difficult question to to give a simple answer to,

um uh I mean, yes, um, by by giving

money,

Um uh, states,

you know, this is in any context, states, um

uh may feel like they, um, get something out of that in terms of, uh,

self self interest.

Um, whether that's limited to a kind of, um, you know, legitimization or of of their,

you know, positive role in supporting multilateralism,

Um, or whether they want something more than that I they want to control, you know,

operationally the direction of, uh, of, uh,

what these counterterrorism bodies do,

Uh, their priorities. Um

uh uh, etcetera, um,

III I just don't have and I I I'm only three months into the job. Um,

I. I just don't have

enough of a sense yet. Um,

of to what extent?

When they give this money, they then have control over how it is spent and directed,

uh, you know, at the at the kind of project and an operational level, uh, or whether,

you know, the money is given.

And then there's, um, uh,

sufficient kind of structural independence within the organisation.

Uh, for the organisation to makeup, you know, make up its own mind about about, um

uh, where those resources are allocated.

What kinds of issues, um uh, are are are worked on, uh and so on.

Um uh, I? I wouldn't say. It's It's It's an issue limited to to money. Uh, I mean,

uh, of course. You know, even if you don't give money, sometimes certain states, um

uh might have, um

uh a senior UN official in a top job in one of these One of these agencies,

Um uh, you know,

different countries on a rotating basis chair the counterterrorism committee

and therefore have a certain level of control over,

Uh, what those What those bodies do.

So there are lots of points of political influence, Uh, you know,

in a political politicised multilateral,

um, system. But I think it it's absolutely the the right question to ask. Um,

if a small number of donors, uh, is giving the majority of the money in the system,

Um, that that should always raise, um, questions, uh, about who has influence. Um

uh, in in the kind of work that those bodies are doing.

Thank you, Mr. Saul. Uh, we have a question in the room.

Thank you for taking my question

from

the Japanese News Agency here at the UN.

Uh, I just have a question regarding the situation in Switzerland. As you know,

um, there were, like,

a terrorist attack in Zurich considered as a terrorist attack.

So the knife attack on, uh, the Orthodox Jew by a 15 year old boy,

Tunisian and Swiss, and

and the idea has been raised to rip up

rip

off his nationality.

Um, so IN that case, would you consider that it would be, like,

again the human rights? What's your opinion on that case? Thank you.

Yes.

Yeah. So, um,

uh, international law says a few things about this. Uh I mean, if, um

uh, you know, if it would make a person stateless, actually, or or de facto,

then I think that, uh, is clearly AAA problem.

Um, if this boy has a second, um, you know,

nationality at present,

Um uh, Tunisia.

Um uh, Then there. Look, there are then still other human rights questions about, um

uh, is it well, is it is it safe to return the person to Tunisia?

Um, what does it mean in terms of impact on family rights, if he has an established,

um, family here and II?

I don't know. Uh, uh, the facts of, uh, of, uh, of this case

Are there risks of ill treatment, etcetera, uh, on on return to

Tunisia, knowing what we know about the the state of,

uh, the legal system there, which is, you know, I mean has lost, You know,

any kind of semblance of independence rule of law in the

last couple of years because of the the state of emergency.

Uh, decrees. Uh, there,

Um uh, being a child, obviously that you know that that what?

What's in the best interests of the child? Uh, plays into that consideration,

Uh, as well. Um, is the process for stripping citizenship?

Um, respectful of of of procedural rights, due process, judicial safeguards? Um

uh uh. Etcetera.

Um, And then, uh, I mean, I would say just on the, um,

security front. Look, you know,

I it is a discretion of states.

Ultimately, Uh, I mean, this is the international law system we have.

It's a discretion of states who they,

uh uh, confer nationality on and and deprive, uh, nationality, Uh, of,

um, and as long as it's not done arbitrarily without due process, etcetera,

then you know it is it is permitted under under international law.

But I, I would say,

um, I in terms of the, um, underlying security question,

Um, III, I do think that,

um uh, if a person has lived in a country for a good period of time might have, uh,

you know,

stronger links to the country they're currently in than

the one they might have some other nationality of

then I do think it it, um

uh, just in terms of, uh, effectiveness of prosecution, Um,

effectiveness of rehabilitation, rehab,

you know, reintegration, deradicalization all all these kinds of processes.

Uh, I mean, it does make, uh, security sense, Um,

in containing whatever risk that person might still pose in the future,

uh, to do all of that in the country where they have the strongest links.

Uh, because that's where they'll be supported by by family.

It's where they, you know, they might,

um, have social connections and speak the the language. And, um

uh, I mean, in this in this context of citizenship stripping, you know,

we have seen lots of cases where people have lived all their life in one country,

Uh, and suddenly, because they've got some formal nationality of another country,

they're They're They're, uh, uh um, uh,

deported to that country where they you know, they've got no links.

Um, that that country might not have effective, um, law enforcement.

Uh, you know, it might have AAA weak. Um

uh uh, system for for dealing with the threat. And and, you know, I.

I do see that as exporting.

Uh,

you know your security problem to another country

that isn't well equipped to deal with that.

So, II, I think we should

be very careful about about citizen, uh, stripping citizenship.

I don't think it's a security solution. And often it's not human rights compliant.

Thank you. The next question is from Mister Musa

Asi

Thank you very much for taking my question.

Um, Israel says, uh,

is fighting in Gaza fighting the terrorist terrorist group in Gaza.

Uh,

what is your opinion about that?

And, uh, are you considering Hamas like, uh, a terrorist organisation? Thank you.

Uh, thanks for the question. Uh, look there.

There is no internationally accepted definition of terrorism, So,

uh,

I don't have an international law basis myself for

determining who is or who or isn't terrorist.

Uh, Hamas is also not on the Security Council's list of terrorist organisations.

Uh, now, having said all of that, of course,

what has happened is that the Security Council, as we mentioned,

has required all countries to take measures, uh,

to to prevent and suppress terrorism

by not adopting a definition.

It's then essentially allowed each country around the world

to make up its own definition of terrorism.

Uh, and to apply that to to different actors.

Uh, and sometimes that's, you know, that that, uh, is is clearly abusive.

Uh, other times, um, it's it's, you know, it's more difficult to tell.

Um, you know, in the II I in terms of my mandate,

I I've got a a mandate from the human rights Council to, um,

uh,

monitor state compliance with human rights,

uh, whenever they, uh, determine that an actor is terrorist.

So I don't have to take a position on whether I think Hamas is is terrorist or not.

That's that's not relevant to the the power I've been entrusted with, uh,

by the United nations.

Um, but what I can do is as soon as, uh, a state, um,

calls a group terrorist or classifies it as terrorist legally,

uh, then that engages my role, uh,

in ensuring that they that that state respects human rights, uh,

in any of the actions it takes,

uh, to counter to counter that that group.

Um so it's a protective function, right? So even if groups,

uh are are are, you know are not strictly or genuinely terrorist?

Um, they you know, there's still, uh,

a level of international protection of human rights,

Uh, in, uh, in in in, in that campaign against the group, um, nominated by, uh,

by a state.

Um, look, uh, on Hamas specifically,

uh, I mean, the the international definition problem.

Uh, of course, uh, part of that debate Still, and there's a treaty being negotiated,

uh, in the General Assembly since 2001 it's been going on for two decades.

Uh, reflects this, um,

ongoing division for the at least the last century between states over issues like,

you know, can you call a self determination movement or a liberation movement?

Terrorist or not,

Um, should terrorism? Um,

a terrorist offences,

uh, apply in situations of armed conflict or not.

Or should we just leave that to be regulated by international humanitarian law?

War crimes, etcetera.

Uh, I mean, why, you know, why is it necessary to call,

uh, a group or a person terrorist?

If when they murder civilians, it's already the war crime of murdering civilians.

Now, some states would say,

uh, the reason is because terrorism law gives you extra powers.

Uh,

which humanitarian law doesn't give you so humanitarian

law forbids you from doing certain things.

It makes certain things, uh, war crimes.

But it doesn't necessarily give you these other powers, you know,

to ban an organisation to criminalise, uh, its membership,

uh, to crack down on its financing,

um, to exercise all kinds of, um, special investigative and surveillance powers.

Um, uh, so, you know, terrorism law can give you extra staff, which, um,

uh,

humanitarian law doesn't necessarily give you and and I I'd point in particular to

what we call preparatory terrorism offences.

So in in relation to war crimes, you know, if you commit a war crime or you,

uh, you know, aid or assist somebody to commit a war crime, you know,

that's that's that attracts criminal liability.

Um, all of that happens in relation to terrorism as well.

But in addition, um, terrorism law often also makes an offence to, you know,

finance a terrorist group or to associate with terrorists

or to be a member of a terrorist organisation.

All things which are generally not offences, uh, in

respect of war crimes or genocide or or or or other, uh, other international crimes.

So on Hamas, Look, some states, uh, call it terrorist and and ban it as terrorists.

Most states in the world have not done that.

Security Council has not listed it.

Um uh, So the question is, you know,

depending on what is the national definition of terrorism in any given country,

um, does what Hamas is doing or has done, uh, fit that definition in national law.

Thank you. As I think Mr Asi

has a follow up.

Yes, Thank you.

Some organisations and states consider the Israeli attack

against civilians in Gaza like a terrorist attack.

How do you see that? What is your opinion about these accusations? Thanks.

Uh, yeah.

So, um, as I mentioned there,

there there's no international definition of terrorism, so we have no

international legal standard. Um uh

from terrorism law to apply to what Israel is doing.

Uh, certainly, you know, under international humanitarian law,

there's already a very comprehensive legal framework for dealing,

uh, with, uh, violence by any party, state or or non state,

Um, in armed conflict. So if you know, uh, if, for example, a party,

uh, is deliberately targeting civilians,

um, causing disproportionate civilian casualties,

launching indiscriminate attacks, which, which harm civilians?

Um uh.

Or you know, deliberately attack civilian infra infrastructure, you know,

buildings, etcetera.

And it

not justified, um, as an attack on a military objective.

Uh, then all of those things are already illegal under international law.

They're already, uh, war crimes, uh, under, uh, under international law. So

calling it terrorism. Uh, I mean, in terms of the the outcome. Um,

uh, it doesn't doesn't make a legal difference.

Uh, it could It could make a difference in terms of, you know, political labelling,

etcetera.

Uh, I mean, is it

and then you have to ask the question,

you know, is it worse to call someone a terrorist than a than a war criminal, right.

Uh, I mean, you know, people might have different, different views on that.

I think, uh, war criminals are pretty bad.

Um, uh, that's already a AAA. Pretty. Uh uh. You know, it's an international crime.

Terrorism is not an international crime, by the way. So

calling something, uh, a crime against humanity,

genocide or war crimes is actually the worst thing you can You can call, uh,

somebody, um, in in terms of the gravity of O of legal, uh, accusations.

So terrorism, you know, does doesn't necessarily, um,

add much to that.

Having said that, what I would say is under international humanitarian law,

there is actually a specific war crime,

uh, of, uh, intentionally, um,

uh,

spreading terror amongst a civilian population.

Um, so it's a It's a form of deliberate attack on civilians.

Um, it has been prosecuted in a number of previous contexts. So, uh, Sierra Leone,

uh uh, in in Sarajevo, in, in Bosnia.

Um, you know, if a a party to an armed conflict,

um, deliberately So.

So it's already a crime to deliberately attack and kill civilians.

But it's also separately,

an additional crime to deliberately attack civilians for the purpose of, uh, uh,

inflicting severe psychological suffering.

Extreme fear, you know, to terrorise them psychologically.

Uh, so quite apart from the underlying physical killings,

um, the international community has said, um, it's also a separate wrong,

which should be recognised in a in a separate war crime.

Um uh, to attack civilians in such a way that you terrorise the the population, uh,

as a as a whole.

So in Sarajevo, it was, um,

you know, deliberately targeting,

uh, you know,

cemeteries and funeral processions and and cafes and

restaurants and public transport and people queuing,

uh, at at food or water points and so on,

uh, to try to intimidate civilians and and make them, uh, feel that resistance, uh,

on the side of the defenders of the besieged city of Sarajevo,

uh, is futile. And you should you should give up.

Uh, likewise, in Sierra Sierra Leone, it was a campaign,

uh, by armed groups of deliberate muti

mutilation of civilians hacking off limbs and,

uh, sexual violence against women,

uh, designed to terrorise and and intimidate the civilian population.

So obviously, you would need evidence of that,

Uh, in in the case of of Gaza,

Um, I is Israel just being careless and tolerating, you know,

high levels of civilian casualties,

which is already illegal under international law,

Or are they deliberately attacking,

um, civilian infrastructure, civilians?

Um, in order to terrorise the population as a as a whole?

Um, uh, that's not an argument.

I I've seen, um, made legally so far, I think for the reason I I gave earlier that,

you know, war crimes crimes against humanity, uh, already comprehensively cover,

uh, everything that, uh that Israel is accused of doing

Thank you, Mister Soul.

if there are no further questions,

we will now close this press conference.

Uh, thank you very much for joining us.