Chapter 2 Protecting the Rights of Victims of Terrorist Attacks T he rights of victims of terrorism are protected by human rights law. The specific rights outlined later in this manual will therefore apply, where relevant, to victims of terrorism. Under international human rights law states have a general duty to protect human rights. This may mean putting into place a proper legal framework for criminalizing certain activity that violates human rights26 and for dealing with victims of terrorism.27 States have a duty to provide protection for victims of crime, including acts of terrorism. There is a positive obligation on the state to protect identifiable potential victims who are at a real and immediate risk of serious crime or terrorist acts, which the law-enforcement agencies know about or ought to have known about.28 Under these circumstances, the state must take all reasonable measures to put in place procedures and practices to prevent terrorist activity and to minimize the collateral impact of counter-terrorism activities. Victims of terrorism and their families have the right to an effective remedy when their rights have been violated in relation to terrorist acts. OSCE participating States have agreed that those who claim that their rights have been violated have the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.29 This means that there must be effective access to court for such victims. The right to an effective remedy for violation of human rights is a key protection for victims of human rights violations. It requires that a range of remedies is available to victims of serious crime, which includes an effective investigation and prosecution of alleged offenders.30 Although the right to a fair trial is principally concerned with defendants, it also acknowledges that the rights of witnesses must be respected. For example, if necessary, screens and other equipment can be used in court to protect vulnerable witnesses.31 However, if a less restrictive measure can suffice then that measure should be applied.32 Victims’ rights to privacy 26 ECtHR, X. and Y. v. The Netherlands, Application no. 8978/80, 26 March 1985, paras. 24-30. 27 The Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on assistance to crime victims of 14 June 2006, Rec(2006)8, helpfully explains what this duty requires. 28 “The Court notes that the first sentence of Article 2(1) enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction […]. It is common ground that the State’s obligation in this respect extends beyond its primary duty to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. It is thus accepted by those appearing before the Court that Article 2 of the Convention may also imply in certain well-defined circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual […]”, ECtHR, Osman v. UK, Case no. 87/1997/871/1083, 28 October 1998, para. 115. 29 Concluding Document of the Vienna Meeting (Third Follow-up Meeting to the Helsinki Conference) (1989 Vienna Document), Principles, para. 13. Available at http://www.osce.org/documents. 30 ECtHR, Aydin v. Turkey, Case no. 57/1996/676/866, 25 September 1997, paras. 103-109. 31 ECtHR, X. v. UK, (1992) 15 EHRR CD 113. 32 ECtHR, Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, Cases nos. 55/1996/674/861-864, 18 March 1997, para. 58. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 27