Under the auspices of Nigeria and Switzerland, the co-chair of the Criminal Justice and Rule of Law Working Group (CJ ROL WG) of the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum (GCTF), ICCT assisted in the development of the "Glion Recommendations".
The CJ ROL WG focuses on developing and supporting good practices and capacity-building initiatives for an effective and rule of law-based criminal justice sector response to terrorism. The aim of this project is to improve a Rule-of-Law based use of administrative measures in a CT context; to provide clarity on the different types of evidence and elaborate on the role of the different actors in the collection, sharing and use of evidence, including in situations of armed conflict. The project set out to achieve this aim through the incremental development of consensus on the use of administrative measures on a CT context by organising expert meetings, conducting interviews, remote consultations, and drafting good practises and recommendations.
ICCT identified relevant stakeholders, then conducted structured interviews to get a better overview of which types of administrative measures were being applied in GCTF countries. ICCT helped coordinate and provided substantial input for the two expert meetings convened by GCTF on this topic. Finally, ICCT developed recommendations, which it delivered to the co-chairs.
This contribution culminated in the drafting and publication of the "Glion Recommendations on the Use of Rule of Law-Based Administrative Measures in a Counterterrorism Context". These are a set of 24 recommendations designed to offer guidance to official figures including policymakers, law enforcement officials, and other relevant stakeholders. The focus was on best practices to design, implement, and monitor administrative measures in the adherence with applicable domestic law. These were adopted by the GTCF on September 25, 2019.
About the project
States continue to grapple with the evolving challenges and threats of terrorism. The travel of foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) to conflict zones, their return to their countries of origin or nationality, or their travel or relocation to a third country - sometimes accompanied by family members, and the (further) radicalization of incarcerated individuals to violence in prisons and upon release, can pose a significant threat to society. The UN Security Council has adopted a number of Resolutions (UNSCR) under Chapter VII requiring States to take certain actions in the interest of international peace and security, including UNSCRs 1267, 1373, 1566, 1904, 2178, 2199, 2253, and 2396.
States have also implemented a range of measures in line with other (non-binding) international and regional documents, including several GCTF documents. These include criminal law measures, preventive policies, rehabilitation and reintegration measures, and administrative measures. Although the use of administrative measures is not new, States are increasingly adopting legislation that allows for their use in a counterterrorism context.
There is no generally-accepted definition of an administrative measure. Within the context of the Glion Recommendations, administrative measures refer to coercive measures that may lawfully restrict, in accordance with the rule of law and applicable domestic law, the exercise of certain human rights, irrespective of laying criminal charges, against a person or entity who is determined to pose a risk to national security.
There are several broad categories of administrative measures. Depending on applicable law, these include, but are not limited to, measures that may affect the exercise of the right to liberty of movement, measures on the involuntary deprivation of nationality, measures that may affect the exercise of the right to liberty and security of person, measures that may affect the exercise of the right to expression, peaceful assembly or association, and measures freezing funds, financial assets or economic resources.
To minimize any potential negative side effects of specific counterterrorism measures, administrative measures must be implemented in full compliance with international human rights law, which articulates the narrow circumstances in which limits on the exercise of human rights are permissible. It is important to distinguish between different measures and their respective impacts on human rights. States should be cognizant that in the case-by-case implementation of administrative measures, they may directly or indirectly impact other rights. States should ascertain that they do not limit non-derogable human rights. This analysis is an essential part of the assessment as to whether the measure is permitted under international human rights law.
The GCTF Criminal Justice and Rule of Law Working Group (GCTF CJ-ROL Working Group), with ICCT assisting, has developed Recommendations for the use of administrative measures that fully respect human rights and the rule of law.