Human Rights Coursework
Striking a balance between counter-terrorism measures and the basic human rights of terrorists remains a controversial issue, given the devastating effects of terrorist attacks in various parts of the world. Why would terrorists be granted human rights, yet they do not respect the same human rights that they claim to have? For instance, the United Nations member countries have experienced tragic human loss that has resulted from violent extremism, including the attacks on its Baghdad offices on 19 August 2003 that claimed the lives of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Sergio Vieira de Mello, twenty-one other men and women, with over 150 others injured. It is evident from such attacks that terrorism manifests real and direct adverse effects on human rights.
Terrorism denies people the enjoyment of their right to life, liberty, as well as the physical integrity of its victims. In addition to such individual costs, it can weaken Governments, destabilize civil society, jeopardize a country’s peace and security, and threaten its social and economic progress. Collectively, all these terrorism effects also have a material impact on the gratification of human rights. It is now common knowledge and experience that terrorism poses a serious threat to human rights and democracy. While every country must take the necessary measures to prevent and effectively sanction terrorist actions, it is important to acknowledge that not all means are justifiable. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
This paper evaluates the standpoint of the European Convention on Human Rights and counter-terrorism in light of a case study involving a Syrian asylum-seeker who overstayed his visa in the UK, married a British woman, and bore a son. However, he will be deported back to Syria because his government wants to question him over his links to the terrorist networks in Syria and possible involvement in bombings in the country. Nevertheless, every jurisdiction has a compelling duty to protect the general interest of public security as well as the rule of law without violating the fundamental human rights of all people, which are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Recognition and Description of the Relevant Rights and Freedoms Protected By the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
More often than not, most measures directed towards terrorists have, to a great extent, lead to the violations of the principles and provisions of basic human rights that ECHR protects. For instance, ECHR has emphasized the protection of rights, such as the right to life, the prohibition on torture on humans or degrading treatment, the right to liberty, and security, the right to a fair trial, as well as respect for private and family life yet almost all counter-terrorism measures have failed to comply with this threshold.[1]
The current terrorist suspect is Osman, who is afraid of torture, a method that the Syrian government often uses, according to his knowledge, when questioning terrorist suspects like him. Should the Syrian government get access to him, he claims that he will be detained and that the Syrian prison conditions are deplorable, considering that they are overcrowded, and have insufficient food and water, including the unsanitary conditions. He further adds that medical care and supplies are scarce in prisons, and he is likely to experience some disease outbreaks. Principally, these are inhuman conditions that would ultimately violate Oman’s fundamental human rights as enshrined in the Convention.
Description and Critical Assessment of Particular Rights or Freedoms Protected By the Convention
Right to Life
ECHR dictates that everyone has a right to life and that such a right shall be protected by law. It further states that no one shall be deprived of their right to life, except in cases where execution of a sentence of a court is required following a conviction of a crime with a clear penalty as provided in the law.[2] It implies, therefore, that there are exemptions to the right to life for everyone, Osman included.
Prohibition of Torture
Article 3 of the ECHR clarifies that no one shall be subjected to torture, inhumanity, degrading treatment, or punishment.[3] The UK, being a member, should consider whether deportation of Osman would expose him to torture as he claims. However, it is also evident that the UK government has neither tortured nor treated him in a manner that is inhuman or degrading in any way, because it has been following the dictates of the law and abiding by the decisions of its courts.
Right to Liberty and Security
Article 5 of ECHR is clear that everyone has the right to liberty and security of persons. However, one may be deprived of this right following a case and procedure stated in the law. The UK government has ensured the security of Osman by holding him on a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure (TPIM), after a without notice closed hearing before the Court. However, article 5(c) permits a lawful arrest or detention of a person solely effected to bring such a person before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion that he must have committed an offense or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent such a person from committing an offense or fleeing after having done so.[4] Osman is suspected of having committed a crime, through his probable participation in the terrorist attacks in Syria. For example, the UK’s Secretary of State maintains that she holds sufficient intelligence to show that he is linked to violent attacks by the terrorist organization. However, she reiterates that she cannot disclose such information because she believes that it might compromise national security.
Right to a Fair Trial
Article 6 of ECHR guarantees the right to fair trial to everyone by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Nonetheless, while judgment should be pronounced publicly, both the press and public may be excluded partly or wholly from the trial, particularly in the interests of morals, public order, or national security in a democratic society. Such a move might be informed by the need to protect the interests of juveniles or for the protection of the private life of the parties involved. In other cases, the motivation to exclude the media and public from some trial proceedings could be the opinion of the Court in special circumstances where it deems that publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. It is evident that Osman has undergone a fair judicial process in the UK while trying to seek asylum and has been denied because of the criminal background information that the government has against his stay in the UK. Article 6(2) further stresses that every person accused of a criminal offense is innocent until proven guilty, and the Convention outlines certain minimum rights that include: the right to be informed promptly and in a language that he or she understands, the nature and cause of the accusation against him, adequate time and facilities to prepare his defense, right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance (lawyers), right to examine witnesses in the case, and a right to free assistance of an interpreter if the accused does not understand the language used in Court.[5]
Right to Respect for Private and Family Life
Article 8 (1) of the Convention states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence. However, Article 8(2) gives exceptions of such rights on some grounds that include putting forward the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.[6] Osman, being a terrorist suspect, is a potential threat to national security; hence, his deprivation of the rights complies with the provisions of the Convention. Should he be left free roaming in the streets, he is likely to cause more harm than good, especially given evidence of self-admission that most of his friends are members of a terrorist group in Syria and that he understands the aim of the group. As aforementioned, terrorism constitutes a tremendous violation of other people’s human rights; thus there is no violation of law in depriving terrorist suspects their rights to private and family life, until that time that they shall have undergone a fair trial process and have been proven to be innocent.
Critical argument and analysis
Apart from terrorism, the UK has other grounds for deporting Osman; he has overstayed his visa, and his subsequent application for asylum has been refused by the UK courts, to the extent that he cannot appeal anymore. To this extent, Osman has no rights in the UK, neither a citizen nor an asylum. Therefore, he cannot claim the rights of either of the two groups that would have cautioned him from deportation.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has observed that governments have the responsibility of protecting those within their jurisdiction from extremist attacks. However, they must ensure that all counter-terrorism actions are executed in a manner that upholds respect for human rights. HRW has a role that includes monitoring actions by various governments and inter-governmental bodies across the globe against violent extremism to see to it that they do not encroach on the rights to life, to protection from torture and ill-treatment, and a fair trial. Such actions are not only unlawful under international law, but they are also counter-productive in the fight against terrorism. Governments are called upon to take counter-terrorism measures that would help avert terrorist attacks and at the same time respect basic human rights. However, the UK government has not in any way unlawfully violated Osman’s rights because even deportation has a clearly outlined procedure in law that the government follows.
Though British citizenship by marriage is a safe step towards becoming a British, the act in itself does not mark the end but rather a start of a naturalization process. According to the UK nationality law, being married to, or in a civil partnership with a UK national does not automatically grant one the right to acquire British citizenship. Therefore, if Osman wanted to become a British and ultimately settle in the UK with his family, he needs to comply with the naturalization procedures. For one to be naturalized through marriage, he or she must be 18 years and above, must demonstrate good character, and must have lived in the UK for at least 3 years, among other requirements. Having a criminal background implies that Osman cannot become a UK citizen despite his 3 years stay in the country because he has broken the immigration laws by fraudulently accessing UK’s tourist visa. If the immigration officers had information of his criminal background, he would not been granted a tourist visa, but he managed to access it because he did not reveal honest and truthful information during the application process.
Osman, without links to terrorism, both by the UK’s Secretary of State and the Syrian government, was on a clear path to getting asylum and later follow the naturalization process to be a British. However, such a process was unsuccessful and now he is not a British and cannot claim to be an asylum. Such a scenario leaves the UK government with various options to ensure that finally, he faces the justice system in Syria.
There is seemingly overwhelming evidence from Osman through admission of being a member and having contact with other friends who are also members of the terrorist group. Syria is well-known for its terrorist networks, and deporting Osman to the country could be a plan by the Syrian government to extend its terrorist networks. Also, Syria is a country that does not respect human rights and the claims by Osman are sensible and real, thus should be taken with the seriousness that they deserve. The UK has tried international terrorist suspects like Osman before, and there is no need to subject him to the unfair trials in Syria. He should go ahead with his trials in the UK.
The deportation of Osman to Syria, though not a legal violation of the UK’s immigration laws, would jeopardize Osman’s fundamental human rights as enshrined in the Convention that it swore to abide by and protect. Certainly, the Syrian government will not guarantee Osman a fair trial and he will be subjected to all other acts and conditions that would go against the provisions of the Convention.
How Convention rights and freedoms may be protected or enforced by national courts and the European Court of Human Rights
The national courts and the European Court of Human Rights have a responsibility to ensure that all basic human rights are respected for all people and that exceptions are made according to the laws.[7] They can do this by entrusting countries that respect human rights to pursue trials of their criminals upon request. However, they should try as much as possible to try all international terrorist suspects from extremist countries, such as Syria, without deporting them back, because that way, such accused would not get justice due to lack of a fair trial and other actions that would lead to gross violation of the provisions of the Convention.
Oman, therefore, has some ground to oppose deportation to Syria and should ask the Courts that he be tried in the UK. The UK government should cooperate with the Syrian government for any evidence not within their reach to conclude the case. That way, all his basic human rights shall be guaranteed because the UK’s legal system is fair solely based on law and fair trial mechanisms.
Conclusion
Having counter-terrorism measures that do not violate the fundamental human rights of terrorist suspects have been a great challenge for most countries. Instead, these measures have escalated the acts of terrorism because they, in a way, contribute to the violation of human rights that victims of terrorist attacks ought to observe too, through a fair justice system where actions are prescribed according to written laws. As per the assessment brief for this assignment, it is clear that the worries of Osman are real, that Syria is a ruthless country that does not obey Laws on human rights. It follows, therefore, that deporting him to Syria will expose him to various human rights challenges that he still enjoy in the UK. The UK government must also ensure that Osman’s rights are protected because he is still a suspect, hence innocent until proven guilty. For the UK government to do him justice, Osman should be tried in the UK and if found guilty, charged and prisoned in the UK the same country, where prisoners enjoy their rights to protection from torture and inhumane treatment. However, if the deportation is based on his overstayed visa, then the government could have not deported him still because they could have violated his right to private life and family because he has a British wife and son.
Bibliography
ECHR. (n.d.). European Court of Human Rights. European Court of Human Rights – ECHR, CEDH, news, information, press releases. https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
[1] ECHR. (n.d.). European Court of Human Rights. European Court of Human Rights – ECHR, CEDH,
news, information, press releases. https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
[4] ECHR. (n.d.). European Court of Human Rights. European Court of Human Rights – ECHR, CEDH,
news, information, press releases. https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home