Context: Upholding
Fundamental Principles in
the fight against Terrorism
“The war on terror continues to serve as a justification for the
indiscriminate exchange of large amounts of highly sensitive
information. Those providing the information have no overview
of who it is that receives the information and to what uses
or misuses this information is put. […] [A] legal filter is now
needed more urgently than ever.” 1
Since the terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001,
intelligence cooperation between States has expanded significantly. 2
The increased demands of tracking and managing multiple global
terrorist threats has required almost every intelligence, security and
police service to build relationships more widely than before, and
increasingly, with States with poor human rights records.
Recent scrutiny of intelligence failures has pushed intelligence sharing
policies into the public domain and has resulted in wide discussions
about whether the sharing and use of information obtained from
torture and other abusive practices can be considered justifiable,
expedient, or lawful. Information now in the public domain has made
it increasingly obvious that information tainted by torture continues
to be used widely across a range of executive actions.
‘Information’ or ‘intelligence’ is used by a variety of executive actors
for a number of purposes. It may be used to establish a basis for
criminal investigation, justify administrative detention, influence
immigration decisions or sanctions, drive government policy, or
direct military or intelligence actions overseas. The variety of uses
1
2
ECCHR, Torture and the Use of Information in Countering Terrorism, Berlin,
31 October 2011, p.30.
See Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), which called on all States to intensify
and accelerate the exchange of operational information and cooperate to prevent
and suppress terrorist attacks. See also Resolution 1624 (2005), which stressed
that States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with
all of their obligations under international human rights law.
5