The Human Rights of Suspected Terrorists

Reference work entry
Part of the International Human Rights book series (IHR)


This chapter describes the human rights protections possessed by those suspected of terrorist activities. It explains that human rights law applies in nearly all counterterrorism operations, and that even when the law of war applies, suspected terrorists possess fundamental protections. The analysis explains how the rights to life, to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, to fair trials, to judicial remedies, to truth, and to privacy apply in counterterrorism situations. The court cases enforcing these rights demonstrate that it is especially important to respect human rights in counterterrorism cases in order to preserve the ideals of democratic societies governed by the rule of law.


Right to life Right to family life fair trial Counterterrorism Torture Surveillance Inter-American Court of Human Rights European Court of Human Rights 


  1. A and Others v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] UKHL 71 (2005), para 146, 149Google Scholar
  2. A v UK, Eur. Ct. H.R., App no 3455/05 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. Abu Zubaydah v. Poland, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2014)Google Scholar
  4. Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania, Eur. Ct. H.R., Application no. 46454/11, (2018)Google Scholar
  5. Agiza v. Sweden, Committee Against Torture (2003).Google Scholar
  6. Al Nashiri v. Poland, Eur. Ct. H.R., Application no. 28761/11, (2014), para 515Google Scholar
  7. Aslakhanova v. Russia, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. Nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08, 42509/10 (2012), para 98Google Scholar
  8. A.W. Khan v. UK, App. No. 47486/06, European Court of Human Rights. 2010Google Scholar
  9. Barrios Altos Case (Chumbipuma Aguirre v. Peru), Inter-Am.Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 87. (2001), para 41Google Scholar
  10. Blake v. Guatemala (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 48 (1999) (22 Jan. 1999), para 63Google Scholar
  11. Botmeh and Alami v the United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R., App no 15187/03 (2007) para 37Google Scholar
  12. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. Bybee JS. The president’s power as commander in chief to transfer captured terrorists to the control and custody of foreign nations, Mar 13, 2002, 23.
  14. Central Intelligence Agency Inspector General, Report of an Investigation, Death of a Detainee, 27 April 2005, para 101, 103, 107, 131-133, and 139 pp 39–52.
  15. Committee Against Torture, General Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by states parties, U.N. Doc. No. CAT/C/GC/2 (24 Jan 2008)Google Scholar
  16. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted 10 Dec. 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, U.N. GAOR, 39th Sess., arts. 12–14, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1985), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force 26 June 1987)Google Scholar
  17. Davis J (2013) Seeking human rights justice in Latin America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 106Google Scholar
  18. Doorson v the Netherlands, Eur. Ct. H.R., sec. 70, Reports (1996)Google Scholar
  19. Edwards and Lewis v the United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R., App nos 39647/98 and 40461/98 (2004), para 46–48Google Scholar
  20. El Masri v. Tenet, 437 F. Supp. 2d 530 (E.D.VA 2006)Google Scholar
  21. El Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 39630/09 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8, Section 2. 1950Google Scholar
  23. Filartiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d. 876 (2nd Cir 1980)Google Scholar
  24. Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, Art. 3Google Scholar
  25. “Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights,” Directorate of the Jurisconsult, Council of Europe, August 31. 2018Google Scholar
  26. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. Hamdan v. U.S., 696 F.3d 1238 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: United States of America, U.N. Doc. No. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1 (18 Dec. 2006), para 16Google Scholar
  30. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29: States of Emergency (Article 4), adopted 31 Aug. 2001, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., 1950th mtg., para 14, U.N. Doc. No. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (31 Aug. 2001)Google Scholar
  31. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, Adopted on 29 March 2004, para 8, U.N. Doc. No. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13 (26 May 2004)Google Scholar
  32. Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No 32, art 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial’ (2007) UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/32, citing Communication No 678/1996, Gutiérrez Vivanco v Peru, para 7.1; Communication No 1126/2002, Carranza Alegre v Peru, para 7.5; Communication No 1125/2002, Quispe Roque v Peru, para 7.3; Communication No 1058/2002, Vargas Mas v Peru, para 6.4Google Scholar
  33. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted 16 Dec. 1966, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess. art. 2(3)(a), U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (23 Mar. 1976)Google Scholar
  34. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, (20 Dec. 2006), U.N. Doc. No. A/61/488, Art. 2Google Scholar
  35. Jasper v the United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R., [GC] App no 27052/95 (2000) para 51–53Google Scholar
  36. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency, arts. 27(2), 25, 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, (Ser. A) No. 9 (1987). (6 Oct. 1987), para 24Google Scholar
  37. Khan v. UK, Eur. Ct. H.R. App. No. 35394/97 (2000)Google Scholar
  38. Klass and Others v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H.R. Series A no. 28 (1978)Google Scholar
  39. La Cantuta v. Peru, Inter-Am Ct. H.R. Series C No. 162 (29 Nov. 2006), para 111Google Scholar
  40. Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, Communication No. R.12/52, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 176 (1981)Google Scholar
  41. Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 101 (25 Nov. 2003), para 180–181Google Scholar
  42. Mayer J. Outsourced: The CIA’s Travel Agent, New Yorker, 30 Oct 2006Google Scholar
  43. McCann v. UK, Eur. Ct. H.R., App. No. 18984/91, 31 (1995)Google Scholar
  44. Mohamed v. Jeppesen, 539 F. Supp. at 1130 (N.D.Cal. 2008)Google Scholar
  45. Mohamed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, (Rev 31-07-2009) [2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin) (21 Aug. 2008), para 3, 47Google Scholar
  46. Mohamed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, [2009] EWHC 152 (Admin) (04 Feb. 2009), para 54Google Scholar
  47. Mohamed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, [2010] EWCA Civ 65 (10 Feb. 2010), para 52Google Scholar
  48. Mohamed and CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA (Civ) 559 [6-8] (Lord Justice Maurice Kay) (appeal taken from EWHC Admin) (UK)Google Scholar
  49. Murray v. the United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. Series A no. 300-A (1994)Google Scholar
  50. Obama B. Remarks by the president on the future of our fight against terrorism. National Defense University, Fort McNair, Washington, DC, 23 May 2010Google Scholar
  51. O’Connell, Mary Ellen, Declaration, Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010), para 14.
  52. Palamara-Iribarne v Chile, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Series C no 135 (2005), para 125Google Scholar
  53. Prosecutor v. Frundzija, ICTY, IT-95-17/1-T, 10 December 1998, para 144, 151Google Scholar
  54. Prosecutor v. Galić, Separate opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, ICTY, Judgment, IT-98-29-A, 2006Google Scholar
  55. Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v Israel, HC 769/02, para 16 (14 December 2006)Google Scholar
  56. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States sec. 102(2) (1986)Google Scholar
  57. Rodríguez v. Uruguay, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 322/1988, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/322/1988 (1994), para 12.3Google Scholar
  58. Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson & Others [2018] EWCA Civ 70Google Scholar
  59. Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, Eur. Ct. H.R. no. 62332/00 (2006)Google Scholar
  60. Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2014)Google Scholar
  61. Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. no. 5201/11 (2015)Google Scholar
  62. SN v Sweden, Eur. Ct. H.R. App no 34209/96, s 47 (2002)Google Scholar
  63. Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, Eur. Ct. H.R. no. 37138/14 (2016)Google Scholar
  64. Van Mechelen and Others v the Netherlands, Eur. Ct. H.R., Reports 1997-III (1997)Google Scholar
  65. Velásquez Rodriguez Case, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4 (29 July 1988), para 166Google Scholar
  66. United States v Abu-Jihaad 630 F3d 102 (2nd Cir 2010)Google Scholar
  67. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953)Google Scholar
  68. United States v Smith 18 US (5 Wheat) 153, 160-61, 5 L Ed 57 (1820)Google Scholar
  69. United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted by G.A. Res. 60/147, 16 Dec. 2005, at Principle 11Google Scholar
  70. United Nations Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity, U.N. Doc. No. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1 (8 Febr. 2005), Part III, Principles 19-30Google Scholar
  71. United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Report on CIA Interrogation, pp. 80–83 and n. 278,
  72. Uzun v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H.R. no. 35623/05, (2010)Google Scholar
  73. Yoo JC, Delahunty RJ. Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales Counsel to the President, Nov. 30, 2001, 27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC)BaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations