Delivering Justice: Views From Supreme Courts in the Euro-Med Region on Countering Terrorism / Points de vue des Cours suprêmes d’Europe, du Moyen Orient et de l’Afrique du Nord sur la lutte contre le terrorisme

Supreme court justices play an important role in strengthening state capacities to bring terrorists to justice within the framework of human rights and the rule of law. As final arbiters, justices seated at the highest courts of law are the nation’s safeguards of the rule of law and human rights, especially when the executive and legislative branches favor national security over these individual rights.

The report synthesizes the discussions held with supreme court justices over the course of an 18-month program in the Euro-Med region (Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa), implemented in partnership with UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) and funded by the European Commission. The program aimed to create a sustainable, nonpolitical forum for supreme court-level and senior judicial officials to discuss, among equals, questions of law arising from terrorism-related cases and to share strategies, frameworks, and good practices for handling these cases over the course of five consultations. The final component of the program brought the First Presidents of the Cassation Courts of Lebanon and Tunisia, as well as other supreme court justices, to discuss their views on how the international community should respond to the threat of terrorism in an open briefing before CTED at the UN headquarters, held in March 2016.

The report is organized around priority issue areas raised by the justices over the course of the program and includes case studies, best practices, and legal commentary on possible resolutions to the common challenges they face in the adjudication of terrorism cases. It further describes a series of international and regional initiatives to support the judiciary, reflecting on the value of interjudicial exchanges in this domain.

_______________

Les juges des Cours suprêmes jouent un rôle important dans le renforcement des capacités des états à traduire en justice les terroristes, le tout dans le respect des droits de l’homme et de l’État de droit. En tant qu’arbitres finaux, les magistrats qui siègent dans les Cours suprêmes sont souvent la dernière ligne de défense de l’État de droit et des droits de l’homme, surtout lorsque les branches exécutives et législatives du gouvernement favorisent la sécurité nationale au détriment des droits individuels.

Ce rapport offre une synthèse des discussions tenues par les hauts responsables judiciaires ayant participé dans un programme de 18 mois dans la région Euro-Med (soit l’Europe, le Moyen-Orient, et l’Afrique du Nord), en partenariat avec les experts de la Direction exécutive du Comité contre le terrorisme des Nations Unies (DECT). Ce programme, qui profite du financement de la Commission européenne, a pour objectif de créer un forum durable et apolitique pour les responsables judiciaires des Cours suprêmes et des instances supérieures, afin de débattre des questions juridiques se rapportant aux affaires liées au terrorisme et de partager les stratégies, les méthodes de travail et les bonnes pratiques relatives à la gestion de ces affaires. La dernière composante du programme a réuni les Premiers présidents des Cours de cassation du Liban et de la Tunisie, ainsi que d’autres juges des cours suprêmes, à discuter sur la manière dont la communauté internationale devrait répondre à la menace du terrorisme lors d’une réunion publique d’information pour la DECT au le siège de l’ONU, tenu en mars 2016.

Le présent rapport est structuré autour des questions prioritaires soulevées par les juges au cours du programme, dont celles se rapportant aux meilleures pratiques, aux défis, aux stratégies et aux études de cas que les juges ont trouvé intéressantes ou dignes d’être discutées et partagées à large échelle. Il contextualise les réponses législatives au terrorisme dans les juridictions représentées et commente sur les solutions potentielles aux défis communs, lesquelles se basent sur les normes juridiques et la jurisprudence existantes au niveau régional et international.

Il peut être téléchargé en français en cliquant ici.

The South Asia Judges Toolkit provides practice-oriented guidance to judges and judicial training academies of the Member States of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation on the adjudication of terrorism and related cases in line with customary international and human rights law and norms. The Toolkit is designed to support judicial academies in the development of national bench books and practice manuals by providing guiding principles and resources. In the absence of a national manual, the toolkit can be used by judges as a reference guide. The contents of the Toolkit may also prove useful for other professionals working in this field, such as prosecutors and investigators.

The Global Center convened a series of regional consultations for judges to support the dissemination and implementation of the Global Counterterrorism Forum’s (GCTF) The Hague Memorandum on Good Practices for the Judiciary in Adjudicating Terrorism Offenses (Hague Memorandum). The program was delivered under the auspices of the GCTF’s Criminal Justice and Rule of Law Working Group and Horn of Africa Regional Capacity Building Working Group, with financial support from the United States Government.

Following an 18-month consultative process with judges and magistrates handling terrorism and related cases from East Africa and Southeast Asia, this publication offers a series of recommendations intended to inform policymakers and judicial administrators to support the implementation of the Hague Memorandum. For each region, an elaboration of the Hague Memorandum offers a more detailed analysis of law and practice, highlighting areas of convergence and divergence with the good practices and identifying institutional actors for their implementation. After a brief overview of the consultative process, this document presents 30 recommendations representing the consensus of the judges who engaged in the process.

With generous support from the governments of Norway and Switzerland, the Global Center, building on its previous analyses of the UN counterterrorism architecture and programs, has produced this independent report to take stock of a decade of multilateral activities implementing the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (Strategy), including past biennial reviews, and develop a set of findings and recommendations to support implementation efforts in the coming decade. Beyond the UN counterterrorism bodies, this report focuses on broader strategic engagement among entities focused on development, human rights, peace and security, education, and culture, including new actors that have emerged to fill gaps that the United Nations has been unable to adequately fill since the adoption of the Strategy, such as the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) and the institutions it inspired. This report includes a critical analysis of the outcomes of deliberations around the 2016 review of the Strategy and reflects on implementation efforts going forward. The study is informed by research on current threats and organizational responses; interviews and consultations with UN officials, member state representatives, academics, and practitioners through bilateral discussions; small-group events; and a tailored survey open to governments, UN officials, and civil society.

Despite the Greater Horn of Africa’s reputation as one of the most conflict-affected parts of the world, the rise of extremist political violence in recent years has led to a heightened sense of insecurity in the subregion. Observers have increasingly raised concerns about the subregion’s potential vulnerability to violent extremism and the ongoing threat posed by al-Shabaab in Somalia. Preventing and countering violent extremism (CVE) in the Greater Horn has become a key priority for a growing community of national, regional, and international stakeholders.

This report provides an overarching survey of regional and national drivers of violent extremism and other sources of insecurity in the Greater Horn, and provides an overview of responses by government and civil society actors in a subset of countries in the subregion: Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda. Part of a broader program to strengthen regional CVE capacities supported by the U.S. Department of State, the report offers strategic and policy-related insights for CVE stakeholders and highlights the need for holistic strategies that support inclusive and sustainable responses to violent extremism.

“De-risking” refers to financial institutions closing the accounts of clients perceived as high risk for money laundering or terrorist financing abuse, namely money service businesses, nonprofit organizations, correspondent banks, and foreign embassies.

This report explores the links between bank de-risking and the ascendance of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism policy. It presents a nuanced overview of the driving factors and influences behind de-risking and its potential impact on financial inclusion, particularly for vulnerable communities. The report includes case studies highlighting innovative approaches to, and lessons learned from, addressing financial access challenges across six different sectors. It concludes with recommendations to better address de-risking challenges for banks, regulators, and bank clients experienced in or at risk of account closures.

As a field of policy and practice, countering violent extremism (CVE) has emerged rapidly in recent years and represents the most significant development in counterterrorism over that time. But CVE stands at something of a fulcrum point. There is enough experience in “doing CVE” to expect that data about its effects and effectiveness can be gathered and analyzed. In turn, such analyses ought to inform future developments if policy is to be evidence based. This report asks, “Does CVE work?” In elaborating a response, the report provides a brief primer on CVE, which is often criticized for lacking coherence as a field. It reviews publicly available evaluation research on CVE to derive lessons from the past, which pertain to governmental efforts to engage communities for the purpose of CVE. It analyzes how those evaluations and related efforts to learn from experience have impacted the evolution of CVE, which has, in general, become better focused on the risk of extremist behavior over time. In turn, the report reviews the state of the art in evaluating CVE measures. The report makes the case for systematizing the understanding and practice of CVE, committing to its evaluation, and moderating expectations about its impacts.

The Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) Rabat Memorandum on Good Practices for Effective Counterterrorism Practice in the Criminal Justice Sector elaborates guidance on 15 good practices that promote rule of law–based criminal justice responses to terrorism. The GCTF encourages all countries to consider the memorandum as a source of guidance, and its members and partners have been working bilaterally and multilaterally to promote its implementation in national and regional contexts. This report presents the core findings of a stocktaking project. It highlights trends, challenges, and opportunities for implementing the good practices of the memorandum and for leveraging these practices to more effectively counter terrorism while promoting and protecting human rights.

Although the Global Center report highlights examples of a wide range of good practices being implemented in national jurisdictions, it calls attention to diverse legal and institutional, organizational, and operational challenges that seriously undermine rule of law–based criminal justice across all countries examined. The findings suggest that core criminal justice sector development efforts are essential for strengthening national implementation of rule of law–based criminal justice practices to counter terrorism. The report concludes with a series of cross-cutting recommendations to support the ongoing efforts of the GCTF Criminal Justice Sector and Rule of Law Working Group.

This report outlines ideas for strategies, programs, and initiatives that can be implemented to prevent and counter violent extremism in the Greater Horn of Africa and increase human security and community resilience. Suggestions include training officials and frontline practitioners to enhance their engagement with communities, improving service delivery and reform of the security and criminal justice sectors, introducing disengagement and reintegration programs, promoting subregional cooperation and information sharing, fostering youth leadership, engaging the media and the private sector, and strengthening the capacity of and engagement with civil society actors.

The action agenda stresses the importance of holistic and inclusive approaches to preventing and countering violent extremism that involve a range of actors, including states in the subregion, partner governments, and international and multilateral actors, as well as regional, subregional, and nongovernmental organizations. With an eye toward increasing the sustainability and impact of programs aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism, it advises to build on initiatives that are already in place in the Greater Horn of Africa and ensure that current and future activities are embedded in ongoing efforts that aim to build capacity across the criminal justice, security, and development sectors.

Developed for the Knowledge Platform Security and Rule of Law, this paper presents a series of thematic discussions derived from the literature on policing in a number of African countries. Taking a developmental and human security perspective, the paper focuses on the diffuse networks of nonstate and state providers that serve as the primary safety and security providers for a vast majority of communities. Although hybrid policing systems vary in capacity and end-user satisfaction, traditional statutory policing structures are generally characterized by severe dysfunction, politicization, and abuse with impunity. Considering the diverse challenges faced by many national police actors on the continent, the paper questions the efficacy of prevailing state-centric security assistance programs and their overwhelming focus on strengthening “enforcement” capacities. It cautions donors to take a more considered approach to ensure their police assistance activities are supporting the protection, not the predation, of local communities.