1. Obligation to suppress terrorism as a mean to protect human rights
Dr. Nataliya O. Maroz,
Associate Professor

2. The notion of terrorism from the International Human Rights Law perspective
The UN Security Council persistently stresses that “terrorism in all forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security”, and “Member States have the primary responsibility in countering terrorist acts and violent extremism conducive to terrorism”

3. “International recognition of victims of terrorism as individuals whose fundamental human rights have been violated, and the incorporation of this principle in a specific international instrument on the rights of victims of terrorism will strengthen international efforts towards an effective global counter-terrorism strategy” Ben Emmerson

4. A terrorist act is a sum of violations of individual rights and freedoms granted by a certain international treaty which is obligatory for a state.
Right to life; liberty and security; human dignity; freedom from torture etc.

5. Justification for this extreme simplification
Individuals can protect their rights violated by terrorists and neglected by a state in international human rights bodies

6. 2) Nature of the obligation to suppress terrorism
Erga omnes;
Imperative;
Demands to eliminate the causes of terrorism, prevent, stop terrorist acts, prosecute those who committed these offenses etc.; and
Not to be involved in terrorist activity themselves;
Emanates from enormous amount of international documents:
The UN Security Council Resolutions;
19 counter-terrorism conventional instruments;
Geneva conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977;
International human rights conventions;
Statute of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon etc.

7. In accordance with the principle in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations, every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when such acts involve a threat or use of force.

8. 3) Elements of the obligation to suppress terrorism
external
internal

9. Internal element
spectrum of activities undertaken by a state to prevent and punish those who have committed terrorist acts on its territory and over its effective control

10. It’s considered as a violation of article 2 of the ICCPR when States Parties permit or fail to take appropriate measures or to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused by such acts by private persons or entities. Consequently, “states should establish effective facilities and procedures to investigate thoroughly that cases

11. Tagaeva and oth. v Russia
The standard for a breach of the positive obligation to protect life through preventive measures can be formulated as follows:
1) a state had knowledge or ought to have known about a real and immediate threat to life; and it
2) failed to take the reasonable preventive measures available in order to avoid, disrupt, deter or minimize the attack.

12. Finogenov and others v. Russia McCann v. the United Kingdom
The HR standard for counter-terrorism operations:
To be planned and controlled by the authorities so as to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to lethal force and human losses,
The states should take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of a security operation,

13. Exception from the general responsibility to prosecute terrorists located in the territory of a state
Lockerbie case
The UN Security Council Resolutions 731 and 748

14. Finogenov and others v. Russia
The standard of effective investigation:
it should be thorough, expedient, and independent;
and the materials and conclusions of the investigation should be sufficiently accessible for the relatives of the victims, to the extent it does not seriously undermine its efficiency.

15. HR v IHL???

16. Under control
Type of control??? <…> the Court enquired itself “whether or not the relationship of the contras to the United States Government was so much one of dependence on the one side and control on the other that it would be right to equate the contras, for legal purposes, with an organ of the United States Government, or as acting on behalf of that Government”

17. External Element Aut dedere aut judicare;
Cooperation on mutual legal assistance;
Cooperation with International Organizations on the issue.