1

EuropeanCommission’sproposalforaDirectiveoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilonCombatingTerrorismandReplacingCouncilFrameworkDecision2002/475/JHAonCombatingTerrorismJointsubmissionbyAmnestyInternational,theInternationalCommissionofJurists,andtheOpenSocietyJusticeInitiativeandtheOpenSocietyEuropeanPolicyInstituteFebruary2016INTRODUCTIONInthissubmission,AmnestyInternational,theInternationalCommissionofJurists(ICJ),andtheOpenSocietyJusticeInitiative(OSJI)andtheOpenSocietyEuropeanPolicyInstitute(OSEPI)analyseandofferrecommendationsontheEuropeanCommission’sDecember2015proposalforaDirectiveonCombatingTerrorismandReplacingCouncilFrameworkDecision2002/475/JHAonCombatingTerrorism(“theproposedDirective”)inlightofMemberStates’obligationsunderinternationallaw,inparticularinternationalhumanrightslaw.Ratherthansubmittingobservationsoneverychallengeraisedbythisproposal,thepresentdocumentfocusesonsomeoftheorganisations’mainissuesofconcernandmakesspecificrecommendationstoaddressthem(bothingeneral-PartI-andinregardtospecificarticles-PartII).Therefore,theabsenceofcommentonaspecificrecitalordraftarticleshouldnotbereadasanendorsementofthattext.Thissubmissionseekstospecificallyaddress:

- ThefailuretoprovidesufficientguaranteesofhumanrightsprotectionintheimplementationoftheDirectivebyMemberStates;

- TheoverbroadscopeandvaguedelineationofmanyoftheoffencestobeestablishedundertheDirective,withconsequencesfortheprincipleoflegalityandtheprohibitionsonarbitrary,disproportionateanddiscriminatoryinterferencewithhumanrights;

- Thedesignationofancillaryandinchoateoffenceswithalowdegreeofproximitytotheprincipaloffenceofcommissionofaterrorism-relatedact;

- Theimprecisedefinitionofthespecificintentrequiredtoincurresponsibilityforanumberofoffencesandlackofrequirementsforwilfulorvoluntaryconduct;

2

- ThepotentialoftheDirectivetounderminestates’obligationsunderinternationalhumanitarianlawandinternationalcriminallaw,wherethoseregimesareapplicable.

I. GENERALPRINCIPLES

BackgroundtotheDirectiveThisproposedDirectivedevelopsandextendsthecriminalisationofterrorism-relatedactsinEUlaw,buildingonFrameworkDecision2002/475/JHAonCombatingTerrorismasamendedbyFrameworkDecision2008/919/JHA.TheimpetusforthenewoffencesincludedintheproposedDirectiveissaidtobeUNSecurityCouncilResolution2178(2014)whichseekstoaddresswhatisoftencharacterizedasthe“foreignterroristfighters”phenomenonandprovidesthat:“MemberStatesshall…preventandsuppresstherecruiting,organizing,transportingorequippingofindividualswhotraveltoaStateotherthantheirStatesofresidenceornationalityforthepurposeoftheperpetration,planning,orpreparationof,orparticipationin,terroristactsortheprovidingorreceivingofterroristtraining,andthefinancingoftheirtravelandoftheiractivities”.1

TheproposedDirectivefurtherdrawsontheAdditionalProtocoltotheCouncilofEurope’sConventiononthePreventionofTerrorismadoptedinMay2015(“theAdditionalProtocol”),whichwasaimedatimplementingSecurityCouncilResolution2178withintheCouncilofEuropelegalframework.AmnestyInternational,theICJandOSJImadeaseriesofsubmissionsonthedraftProtocol,andretainsignificantconcernsregardingitscontentandpotentialtoresultinviolationsofhumanrights.2AlthoughbothSecurityCouncilResolution2178andtheAdditionalProtocolaffirmthatthemeasurestheyestablishmustbeimplementedinaccordancewithStates’internationalhumanrightsobligations,bothcontainflawsthatgiverisetothepotentialtoresultinarbitrary,disproportionate,anddiscriminatoryinterferencewithhumanrights,andtoconflictwithinternationalhumanitarian

1 UNSC resolution 2178, UN Doc. S/RES/2178 (2014), 24 September 2014, OP 5. 2AmnestyInternationalandtheInternationalCommissionofJurists,PreliminarypublicobservationsonthetermsofreferencetodraftanAdditionalProtocolsupplementingtheCouncilofEuropeConventiononthePreventionofTerrorism,6March2015http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CouncilofEurope-Letter-ForeignFighters-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2015-ENG.pdf;AmnestyInternationalandtheInternationalCommissionofJurists,SubmissiontotheCommitteeonForeignFightersandRelatedIssues(COT-CTE)ontheDraftAdditionalProtocoltotheConventiononthePreventionofTerrorism,19March2015,http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CouncilofEurope-Submission-ForeignFighters-Advocacy-Legal-Submission-2015-ENG.pdf;AmnestyInternationalandtheInternationalCommissionofJurists,SubmissiontotheCouncilofEuropeCommitteeofExpertsonTerrorism(DODEXTER)ontheDraftAdditionalProtocoltotheCouncilofEuropeConventiononthePreventionofTerrorism,7April2015.http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CouncilofEurope-CODEXTER-DraftProtocolTerrorismConvention-ICJ-AISubmission-2015-ENG.pdf;OpenSocietyJusticeInitiative,CommentsontheDraftAdditionalProtocoltotheCouncilofEuropeConventiononthePreventionofTerrorism,24March2015,https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/comments-draft-additional-protocol-council-europe-convention-prevention-terrorism.

3

lawandinternationalcriminallawwhereapplicable.3Theseproblemsarealsoreflected,andinsomecasesexacerbated,inthetextoftheproposedDirective.Internationalhumanrightslaw:generalprinciplesAmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIconsiderthattheproposedDirectiveascurrentlydraftedwouldnotaccordwiththeprincipleoflegalityofcriminaloffencesenshrinedinarticle49oftheEUCharter,Article7oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)andArticle15oftheCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR).ThehumanrightsobligationsengagedbythemeasuresintheproposedDirectiveinclude,amongothers,therighttoliberty;therighttofreedomofmovement,includingtherighttoleaveandenterone’sowncountry;therighttoprivacy;therightstofreedomofexpressionandassociation;andtheprincipleofnon-discrimination.UndertheCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEU(Article52.1),aswellastheECHRandtheICCPR,bothofwhicharebindingonallEUMemberStates,anyrestrictionsoftheserightsmustbeprescribedbylawwhichisclearandaccessible,inpursuitofalegitimatepurpose,andmustbenecessaryandproportionatetoachievethatpurpose.Theburdenisonthestatetodemonstratethattheseconditionsaremet,includingthenecessityandproportionalityoftherestriction.Restrictionsmustbeconsistentwithallotherhumanrightsrecognizedininternationallaw;maynotimpairtheessenceoftherightaffected;andmaynotbeappliedinadiscriminatoryorarbitrarymanner.Therequirementthat,wherelimitationsoncertainhumanrightsarepermissible,theymustbe“prescribedbylaw”reflectsthewell-establishedprincipleoflegality,aprinciplethatsimilarlyappliestodefiningallcriminaloffences.Thus,lawsmustbeclearandaccessibleandtheirapplicationinpracticemustbesufficientlyforeseeable.Inparticular,theymustbeformulatedwithsufficientprecisiontoenableanindividualtoregulatehisorherconductaccordingly.Theymustnotconferunfettereddiscretiononauthorities,butratherprovidesufficientguidancetothosechargedwiththeirapplicationtoenablethemtoascertainthesortofconductthatfallswithintheirscope.4 ThisprinciplehasbeenaffirmedbytheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsasanessentialelementoftheruleoflawandanimportantprotectionagainstarbitrariness.5 Withregardtocriminalization,theprincipleoflegalityrequiresthatthelawmustclassifyanddescribeoffencesinpreciseandunambiguous3Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, UN Doc. A/HRC/28/28 of 19 December 2014, paras. 46/47.4 Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, UN Doc. A/HRC/28/28 of 19 December 2014, para. 28; UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/98 of 28 December 2005, para.46. See, for example, Article 49 of the EU Charter, Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 5 Del Rio Prada v. Spain, application no. 42750/09, Grand Chamber, 21 October 2013, para. 77.

4

languagethatnarrowlydefinesthepunishablebehaviour.Theoffencesintheproposeddirectiveareinsufficientlypreciseandconductwhichwouldtriggercriminalresponsibilityundertheminsufficientlyforeseeabletosatisfytheprincipleoflegality,andshouldbeamendedaccordingly.(SeefurtherbelowspecificrecommendationswithregardtoArticles2,4,5,8,9and10.)Furthermore,thecriminalizationofearlierstagesofcertainpreparatoryactsthatareseveralstagesremovedfromanyprincipaloffence,includingwhenrelatedtoterrorismandwithoutadirectintenttocommittheprincipaloffence,leadstoaveryweak,ifany,causalorproximatelinkwiththeprincipaloffence.Theseancillaryoffencesarethereforedifficulttojustifyasnecessaryandproportionatetolegitimateaimssuchascombattingseriouscrimeandprotectingnationalsecurity.Anypreparatoryoffencetobecriminalizedmusthaveagenuinelycloseconnectiontothecommissionoftheprincipalcriminaloffence,witharealandforeseeableriskthatsuchprincipalcriminalconductwouldinfacttakeplace.TherelevantprovisionsintheproposedDirectiveshouldbeamendedinlightoftheserequirements,toclarifythattheremustbegenuinelycloseproximitytotheprincipaloffenceandspecificintenttocommitortoactually6contributetoaterrorism-relatedact.Crimesunderinternationallawandrelatedstates’obligationsWhereindividualsareaccusedofcrimesunderinternationallaw,criminalizationandco-operationintheprosecutionofthosecrimesshouldinclude,wherenecessary,assertinguniversaljurisdiction,andbringingthoseresponsibletojustice,infairproceedings.TheobligationtotakethesestepsisbindingonallEUMemberStatesunderexistinginternationallaw.7Whilethereareclearevidentialchallengesininvestigatingandprosecutingcrimesunderinternationallawsuchaswarcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanityperpetratedinothercountries,theresponsibilityofstatestoensurethatthosewhoengageinsuchcrimesareheldaccountableforthemneedstoremainattheforefrontofallEUMemberStates’agenda.WethereforeurgeEUMemberStatesandMEPs,inthenegotiationofthisDirective,andMemberStatesinitsimplementationinnationallaw,togiveprioritytothefulfilmentoftheirexistingobligationstoinvestigateandprosecutewarcrimes,crimesagainsthumanityandothercrimesunderinternationallaw,includingthroughco-operativemeasures.6The term ‘actual contribution’ means the offense would not have occurred, but for the contribution: Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, Wex, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actual_cause 7 See Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Articles 17, 54, 59, 86-89; Convention against Torture, Articles 6, 7; International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, Articles 3, 6, 11; International Court of Justice, Questions Concerning the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), judgment of 20 July 2012, paras 92-95.

5

Theroleofnon-punitiveapproachesWhiletheproposedDirectivefocusesonpunitivemeasurestocombatterrorism,itwouldbebeneficialfortherecitalstorecognizetheimportanceofusinganon-punitiveapproachtoaddressmanyofthefactorssurroundingtheresorttocriminalconduct,includingterrorismrelatedconduct.Thisiswarranted,interalia,inlightoftherolethatduressandcoercioncanplay,inparticularwithregardtochildren.Atthesametime,itshouldbemadeclearthatsuchreferencestonon-punitivemeasuresarenotregardedasincludingorencouragingadministrativemeasures,suchasrestrictionsonfreedomofmovement,whichmaybetantamounttodetentionwithoutchargeortrialormeasures,whichinterferewithrightsincludingfreedomofexpressionbeyondwhatisdemonstrablynecessaryandproportionateforthestatedlawfulpurpose,orwhichareappliedinadiscriminatorymanner,andthatallsuchmeasuresmustbesubjecttoeffectiveappealinthecourts.ThelegislativeprocessandthelackofanimpactassessmentAmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIareconcernedthattheexpeditedprocessfortheadoptionofthisDirectivewillfurtherincreasetheriskofitsprovisionsleadingtoviolationsofhumanrights,whenimplementedinnationallaw.Inparticular,theexplanatorymemorandumaccompanyingtheDirectivestatesthat“giventheurgentneed…inlightofrecentterroristattacks…thisproposalisexceptionallypresentedwithoutanimpactassessment.”GiventheimpactthatthisDirectivemayhaveonawidearrayofhumanrights,inadditiontotheresourcesofMemberStates,itiscrucialthatthisDirectiveundergoesproperscrutinyanddebate,includingthroughanimpactassessment,andthroughproperconsultationwithcivilsocietyastothepotentialimpactoftheDirectiveinpractice.AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIrecommendthatthetimetableforconsiderationoftheproposedDirectivebemodified,withaviewtoensuringthoroughscrutinyandaproperparticipatorydebate.Wealsonotethattheexplanatorymemorandumoutlines“implementationplansandmonitoring,evaluationandreportingarrangements”whichinclude“consultationswithMemberStatesandstakeholders,notablyEuropol,EurojustandtheFundamentalRightsAgency.”AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIrecommendthatprovisionbemadeforcivilsocietytoalsoparticipateintheseactivities.

II. COMMENTARYONARTICLES

NewArticle:InclusionofhumanrightssafeguardsWeareconcernedthattheproposedDirectiveprovidesinsufficientrecognitionoftheresponsibilityofStatestocomplywiththeirhumanrightsobligationsandtheruleoflawwhileresortingtoanycounterterrorismmeasure.AlthoughreferenceismadeinRecital19toobligationsundertheTreatyontheEUaswellastheCharterofFundamentalRightsfortheEuropeanUnion,itisaseriousomissionthattheoperativepartoftheDirectivecontainsnoguaranteesofhumanrightsprotection.ThisisincontrasttoArticle1(2)oftheCouncil

6

FrameworkDecisionof13June2002onCombatingTerrorism,whichstatesthat“[t]hisFrameworkDecisionshallnothavetheeffectofalteringtheobligationtorespectfundamentalrightsandfundamentallegalprinciplesasenshrinedinArticle6oftheTreatyonEuropeanUnion.”8AhumanrightssafeguardclauseisalsoincludedinArticle2ofthe2008FrameworkDecision.Itisdifficulttounderstandwhytheseorsimilarsafeguardclauseshavenotbeenincluded.FurthermoreitshouldbenotedthattheCouncilofEurope’sAdditionalProtocoltotheConventiononthePreventionofTerrorism,asourcedocumentforthisDirective(asassertedbytheEuropeanCommission),containsanexplicitprovisionstipulatingthatStatePartiesmustensuretheimplementationoftheProtocolisinlinewiththeirhumanrightsobligations.9WethereforerecommendthatanewArticlebeincludedintheoperativesectionoftheproposedDirectivestipulatingthattheDirectivedoesnothavetheeffectofalteringinanywaytheMemberStates’obligationsconcerninghumanrightsandfundamentallegalprinciplesasenshrined,interalia,inArticles2and6oftheTreatyonEuropeanUnion,intheCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEuropeanUnion,intheEuropeanConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms(ECHR)andintheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR).ProceduralrightsandtherighttoaneffectiveremedyGiventhepotentialoftheoffencestoimpactontheenjoymentofhumanrights,aswellasthetendencyfornationallegalsystemstoapplyspecialproceduresorlesserproceduralsafeguardsincasesinvolvingoffencesrelatedtoterrorism,itisimportantthattheDirectiveemphasisesandre-enforcestherightsofsuspectsandaccusedpersonsincriminalproceedingsrelatedtotheoffenceswithinitsscope.Moreover,theDirectiveshouldmakeexpressreferencetotherightsindividualshavetoeffectiveremediesforhumanrightsviolations.Suchlanguagewouldre-enforceobligationsunderArticles6,47andArticle48(2)oftheCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEuropeanUnion,Articles5,6and13oftheECHRandArticles2(3),9and14oftheICCPR,whichenshrinetherightstoliberty,toafairtrialandaneffectiveremedy.Inaddition,itishighlyrelevanttotheDirectivethatinrecentyears,theEUhasaffirmedtheprotectionofdefencerightsbyadoptingaseriesofDirectivesaimingtoensurethatminimumstandardsareappliedthroughouttheEUandthatallsuspectsandaccusedpersonsareguaranteedcertainfundamentalrights.TheseincludetheDirective2010/64/EUoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof20October2010ontherighttointerpretationandtranslationincriminalproceedings10;Directive2012/13/EUoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof22May

8 Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002F0475.. 9AdditionalProtocol,Article810 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1453219086697&uri=CELEX:32010L0064

7

2012ontherighttoinformationincriminalproceedings11;andDirective2013/48/EUoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof22October2013ontherightofaccesstoalawyerincriminalproceedingsandinEuropeanarrestwarrantproceedings,andontherighttohaveathirdpartyinformedupondeprivationoflibertyandtocommunicatewiththirdpersonsandwithconsularauthoritieswhiledeprivedofliberty”.12AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIthereforerecommendthefurtherinclusionintheproposedDirectiveofanadditionalArticleonhumanrightssafeguards,includingaclausestatingthatnothingintheDirectiveaffectstheobligationsonallMemberStatestoguaranteeproceduralrightsforpeoplesuspectedoraccusedoftheoffenceslistedintheDirective,aswellastherighttoaneffectiveremedyforviolationsofhumanrights.ThearticleshouldrefertorightssetoutinArticles6and47oftheCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEuropeanUnion,Articles5,6and13oftheECHR,Article,914and2(3)oftheICCPR,includingwherereflectedintheDirectivesadoptedpursuanttotheResolutionoftheCouncilof30November2009onaRoadmapforstrengtheningproceduralrightsofsuspectedoraccusedpersonsincriminalproceedings,13suchastheDirectivesmentionedabove.FreedomofExpressionArticle 3(2)(i) of the proposed Directive, which prohibits a person fromthreateningtocommitanyoftheotheractslistedinArticle3(2),poses(perseaswell as when taken together with other provisions of the Directive) in manyrespectsparticularlyseriousconsequencesfortherighttofreedomofexpressionThisisinparticularduetothebroadnatureoftheDirective’soffensesandsincethe Directive does not sufficiently define the qualities that the threat mustcontain,suchasitsprecision,nature,anditslevelofimpact.Theseconsequencesare exacerbated by Article 16, which makes it a crime to aid, abet, or incitesomeone to threaten to commit a terrorism related offense. Article 5, whichprovides for the offence of “public provocation to commit a terrorist offence”,alsohasasignificantimpactonfreedomofexpression.The criminalisation of such threats and provocation, which as pointed out isparticularlyremotefromanyactualprincipaloffence,maybeextremelydifficulttojustifyandtheDirectiveshouldbeamendedaccordingly.ItisessentialthattheDirective expressly reaffirm and effectively guarantee the right to freedom ofexpression,whichmay only be limitedwhere the authorities can affirmativelyjustify restrictions as prescribed by law and as absolutely necessary andproportionate to a legitimate purpose as noted above. Such a provision wasincludedinthe2008FrameworkDecisiononCombatingTerrorism,whichfirstintroduced theoffenceof “publicprovocation to commit a terrorist offence” in

11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1453219057037&uri=CELEX:32012L0013 12 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32013L0048 13 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2009.295.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2009:295:TOC

8

EU law.14 It isnotclearwhat justificationtherecouldbe foromittingasimilarclausefromtheDirective.IntheviewofAmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIand OSEPI, the particular impact of the Directive on freedom of expressionwarrantsaspecificclausere-enforcingMemberStatesobligationstoprotectthatfreedomunder theCharter of FundamentalRights and in international humanrightslaw.WethereforerecommendthatanewArticle,oraspecificclauseof the broader human rights safeguard provision mentioned above, beinsertedstipulatingthattheDirectiveshallnothavetheeffectofrequiringMember States to takemeasures in contravention of their obligations torespectandprotectfreedomofexpression.Article2:Definitionsofa“terroristgroup”anda“structuredgroup”ItissignificantforseveraloftheoffencesintheproposedDirective,notablyforoffencesrelatedtotravelunderArticle9andancillaryoffences,thatthedefinitionof“terroristgroup”andof“structuredgroup”underArticle2areoverbroadandindeterminate.Forinstance,underArticle2a“structuredgroup”isdefinedwithparticularlackofclarity,andinthenegative,asa“group…thatdoesnotneedtohave…adevelopedstructure.”Also,a“terroristgroup”isagroupestablished“overaperiodoftime”,withoutfurtherspecificationofthistemporalscope.Theuncertaintyofsuchdefinitionsfailstoensurethattheirapplicationinpracticeisreasonablyforeseeable,contrarytotheprincipleoflegality.Amnestyinternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIthereforerecommendthatthedefinitionsinArticle2,suchasthatof“terroristgroup”andof“structuredgroup”,berevised,includingtocomplywiththeprincipleoflegality.Article3:Definitionof“terroristoffences”Thedefinitionof“terroristoffences”underArticle315hassignificantimplicationsforthescopeofalloffencesintheDirective,includingthenew

14 Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA of 28 November 2008 amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008F0919 15Article 3 states that:“Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts referred to in paragraph 2, as defined as offences under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation are defined as terrorist offences where committed with the aim of one or more of the following: (a) seriously intimidating a population; (b) unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, (c) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation. 2. Intentional acts referred to in paragraph 1 are (a) Attacks upon a persons' life which may cause death; (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person; (c) kidnapping or hostage taking; (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss; (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport; (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;

9

offencesof“receivingtrainingforterrorism”and“travelabroadforterrorism”.TheDirective’sdefinitionisformulatedinhighlygeneraltermsanditsscopeisunclearinanumberofrespects.Forinstance,itisdifficulttoforeseehowthesatisfactionofcriteriasuchas“mayseriouslydamageacountryoraninternationalorganisation”,“seriouslydestabiliseordestroythefundamentalpolitical,constitutionaleconomicorsocialstructuresofacountry”or“resultinmajoreconomicloss”maybedeterminedinpractice.AsregardsArticle3(2)(d),itisalsounclearwhethertherequirementfortheconducttobe“likelytoendangerhumanlife”appliesinallthecircumstancesforeseenbythisprovision.Moreover,theuseoftheterm“likely”introducesfurtheruncertaintytothisalreadyimpreciseprovision.Moreover,thedefinitiondoesnotrequirethatanactmustbewilfulforittobeanoffence.Inaddition,astheDirectiveisunclearaboutitsapplicationtoconducttakingplaceaspartofanarmedconflict,asmentionedabove,thisprovisioncouldpotentiallyundermineinternationalhumanitarianlaw(IHL)bycriminalisingactsofviolencethataregovernedbyIHL,includingforexample,actsfallingwithinArticles3.1(a)or3.1(c)readwithArticle3.2.(a)(b)or(d).ItisimportantthattheDirectiveshouldnotaffectotherrights,obligations,andresponsibilitiesofaStatesandindividualsunderinternationallaw,includingIHL.IHLalreadyprohibitscertainconductthatwouldbecharacterisedasterrorismifcommittedoutsideofasituationofarmedconflict,includingactsorthreatsofviolencetheprimarypurposeofwhichistospreadterroramongstcivilianpopulations.16UnderIHL,inthecontextofarmedconflictsuchconductisgenerallyprohibitedaswarcrimes.Thesecrimesarealreadyclearlydefinedininternationalcriminallaw,17and,asnotedabove,thereisawell-establishedinternationallegalframeworkfortheirprosecution,whichalreadyappliesandimposesobligationsofinvestigation,prosecutionandmutualassistanceonallEUMemberStates.18TheCouncilofEuropeConventiononthePreventionofTerrorismcontainsrulesexcludingitsapplicationinarmedconflictinitsArticle26(4)and26(5),19andit

(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life; (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life; (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in points (a) to (h). 16 Protocol I, Art 51(2); Protocol II, Article 13(2). 17 See Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Articles 7 and 8; Convention against Torture, Article 1; International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, Article 2. 18 See Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Articles 17, 54, 59, 86-89; Convention against Torture, Articles 6, 7; International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, Articles 3, 6, 11; International Court of Justice, Questions Concerning the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), judgment of 20 July 2012, paras 92-95. 19 Article 26(4) states, “Nothing in this Directive shall affect other rights, obligations and responsibilities of a Party and individuals under international law, including international humanitarian law.” Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, Warsaw, 16.V.2005, Article 26(4). Article 26(5) states, “The activities of armed

10

wouldwellservetheEUDirectivetoadoptasimilarapproachandexcludeitsapplicationtoconductgovernedbyinternationalhumanitarianlawand/orinternationalcriminallaw.Statesshouldgiveprioritytofulfillingtheirexistinginternationallegalobligationstoinvestigateandprosecutewarcrimes,crimesagainsthumanityandothercrimesunderinternationallaw,includingthroughco-operativemeasuresandthroughassertinguniversaljurisdictiontobringthoseresponsibletojusticeinfairproceedings.AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIthereforerecommendthatanewclausebeincludedinArticle3clarifyingthatnothingintheDirectiveshouldbeconstruedtoaffectinanywayotherrights,obligationsandresponsibilitiesMemberStatesandindividualshaveunderinternationallaw,includinginternationalhumanitarianlawandinternationalcriminallaw.Article4:“Offences relating to a terrorist group” �Article4(b)sanctionsparticipationin“activitiesofaterroristgroup”withtheknowledgeofthefactthatsuchparticipation“willcontributetothecriminalactivitiesoftheterroristgroup.”ItisnotclearfromthetextofArticle4whatlevelofinvolvementinagroupwouldberequiredtoestablishparticipationorwhatintentandlevelofawarenesswouldberequiredforanindividual’sconducttobedeemedcriminal.Withoutdefiningtheword“contribute”oridentifyingandcircumscribing,exceptbywayofexample,thetypesofcontributionsthataretobesanctioned,itisdifficultforindividualstoascertainwithsufficientcertaintywhichconductcouldconstituteacriminaloffence.Includingwhentakentogetherwiththelackofclarityandprecisionofthedefinitionof“terroristoffence”inArticle3,itthereforeraisessignificantconcernsastotheprincipleoflegality,andrisksarbitraryapplicationinpractice.Article4(b)must,ataminimum,ensurethatanyoffenceofparticipatinginthe“activitiesofaterroristgroup”isconfinedtocontributionsthathaveanactualeffecton,andcloseproximityto,thecommissionofaprincipalcriminaloffence.Itmustalsoensurethatsuchparticipationisvoluntaryandwithknowledgethattheactionwillactuallycontributetothecommissionoftheprincipaloffence.ItisalsoproblematicthatArticle4(b)appliestocontributionsmadeto“criminalactivitiesofaterroristgroup”withoutspecifyingthatthecriminalactivitiesarerelatedtoterrorism.Notallsuchgroups’activitythatmighthaveacriminalforces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention, and the activities undertaken by military forces of a Party in the exercise of their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, are not governed by this Convention.” Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, Warsaw, 16.V.2005, Article 26(5). Similarly, preambular paragraph 11 to the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, states, “Actions by armed forces during periods of armed conflict, which are governed by international humanitarian law within the meaning of these terms under that law, and, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of international law, actions by the armed forces of a State in the exercise of their official duties are not governed by this Framework Decision.” Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002F0475.

11

characterisnecessarilyterrorismrelated,andthereforeappropriateforcriminalisationasaterrorism-relatedoffence.Article4(b)shouldthereforebeamendedtoclarifythatitappliesonlytoparticipationintheactivitiesofagrouptocommitortoactuallycontributetoterrorismrelatedoffencescommittedbymembersofthatgroup.Article5:“Public provocation to commit a terrorist offence”AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIareconcernedattheoverbroadanduncertainscopeofthisarticleandthesignificantdegreeofinterferencewhichwouldresultwithrespecttofreedomofexpression.Thearticlecriminalisesconduct“whetherornot(itis)directlyadvocatingterroristoffences”,providedthatitmerely“causesadangersuchoffencesmaybecommitted”.Thisestablishesaverylowthresholdfortheproximityofthecriminalisedconducttoanyprincipaloffence.Thevaguenessoftheprovisionmakesitdifficulttoforeseehowitwillbeappliedinpractice,contrarytotheprincipleoflegality.Furthermore,thepotentialbreadthandtheuncertaintyofitsscopecarryrisksofarbitraryordiscriminatoryinterferencewithfreedomofexpression.Wenotethat,althoughthe2008FrameworkDecisioncontainedanequivalentoffence,20thiswasaccompaniedbyaclausesafeguardingfreedomofexpression,21aclausewhichhasnotbeenincludedinthepresentproposal.Asalreadynotedabove,itisessential,includinginordertomaintainthelevelofprotectionforfreedomofexpressionthatappliesundertheFrameworkDecision,thatsuchasafeguardclausebeincludedintheDirective.Articles5,6,7,8and14:terrorismrelatednatureofthecriminaloffencesArticles5to8andArticle14statethatthoseprovisionsshallapplytoactslistedinArticle3(2)(a)to(h).However,sincetheyomitanyreferencetoArticle3(1),itisnotclearthattheactsinArticle3(2)(a)to(h)mustbecommittedinrelationtoterrorismascharacterisedbyArticle3(1).Intheabsenceofsuchareference,theseprovisionswouldcriminalizeactsthatarewhollylackingthecentralelementformingthebasisforthisDirective.AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIthereforeproposethatinArticles5,6,7,8and14thereferencetoArticle3(2)(a)to(h)shouldbereplacedwithareferencetotheoffenseslistedinArticle3withtheexceptionofthatinArticle3(2)(i).Also,asmentionedabove,Articles9to13’sreferencetoArticle3(2)(i)createsproblematicconsequencesthatshouldberedressedaccordinglythroughamendment.Article8:“Receiving training for terrorism” Weareconcernedthattheoffenceof‘receivingtrainingforterrorism’inArticle8isnotdraftedwithsufficientclarityandprecisiontopreventarbitraryapplicationofthecriminallaw,andthereforerisksviolationoffreedomofassociationaswellasof,interalia,thefreedomtoreceiveinformation.AlthoughArticle8providesthatreceivinginstructionmustbecommitted“intentionally”,20Article12008/919/JHA,Article3.1(a)andArticle3.2(a)2002/919/JHAasamended21Article22008/919/JHA

12

itisnotclearfromthetextthattheoffenceof“receivingtrainingforterrorism”mustbecommittedwilfullyandthatitissubjecttoestablishing specificintentofcarryingout,orcontributingtothecommissionoftheprincipaloffenceasaresultofthetraining.Intheabsenceofsuchintent,thereisariskofcriminalizingconductwhichlacksasufficientproximatecausallinkwiththeprincipalcriminaloffence.AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIthereforerecommendthatArticle8beamendedtoclarifythat,fortheoffencetoapply,apersonmustreceivethetrainingwilfully,andwiththespecificintentofcarryingoutorsignificantlycontributingtothecommissionoftheprincipaloffence.ThereisaparticularriskthatArticle8maybeinappropriatelyappliedwheresomeoneinadvertentlyaccesseswebsitesprovidingsuchtraining.WenotethattheEuropeanCommission’sexplanatorymemorandumtotheproposedDirectivestatesthat“themerefactofvisitingwebsitescontaininginformationorreceivingcommunications,whichcouldbeusedfortrainingforterrorism,isnotenoughtocommitthecrimeofreceivingtrainingforterrorism.Theperpetratormustnormallytakeanactivepartinthetraining.”22AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIproposethat,inordertoguardagainstarbitraryapplicationoftheoffence,asimilarclausebeincludedintheproposedDirective.Article9:“Travelling abroad for terrorism”Theoffenceof“travellingabroadforterrorism”inArticle9impactsontherighttofreedomofmovement,includingthefreedomtoleaveanycountry,includingone’sown,whichunderinternationalhumanrightslawmaybelimitedonlywherestrictlynecessaryandproportionatetoalegitimatepurpose.23Accordingly,andinordertocomplywiththeprincipleoflegalityandtoavoidarbitraryanddiscriminatoryapplicationinpractice,Article9mustbeformulatedwithgreaterprecisionsoastoensurethatanypreparatoryactwhichistobecriminalizedmusthaveasufficientlyclose(proximate)connectiontothecommissionoftheprincipaloffence,withintent,andarealandforeseeableriskthatsuchprincipalcriminalconductwouldinfacttakeplace.Inparticular,itshouldbeclarifiedthatintentionunderArticle9requiresnotonlyintentiontotravel,butalsoaclearlydemonstratedintenttodosoforthepurposesofcommittingoractuallycontributingtotheprincipaloffence.Itshouldalsoclarifythat,inkeepingwiththeprincipleofpresumptionofinnocence,theburdenofproofliessolelywiththeprosecution.Thedefendantshouldnotinanycircumstancesbeartheburdenofproofinestablishingthathisorhertravelisforalegitimatepurpose.ItisnotablethatArticle9criminalisesawiderrangeofconductthantheequivalentoffenceundertheAdditionalProtocoltotheCouncilofEurope

22Explanatorymemorandum,page1723 Article 2 Protocol 4 ECHR; Article 12 ICCPR.

13

ConventiononthePreventionofTerrorism(Article4).WhiletheProtocolrequirescriminalisationoftravelforthepurposesof“thecommissionof,contributiontoorparticipationinaterroristoffence,ortheprovidingorreceivingoftrainingforterrorism”,theDirectivewouldalsocriminalisetravelforthepurposesof“participationintheactivitiesofaterroristgroupreferredtoinArticle4”.Thiselementoftheoffencehasaparticularlyunclearscope,giventheuncertaintyofthemeaningof“participationinaterroristgroupactivities”underArticle4(seeabove).WhatisclearisthatArticle4envisagesthatrelativelyminorinvolvement,suchassupplyinginformationorresources,involvesparticipation,andthatitdoesnotrequirethatsuchparticipationbewilfulorvoluntary.Takentogetherwiththewidedefinitionofterrorism,thisislikelytomean,amongstotherthings,thatanyonetravellingtoazonecontrolledbyapartytoanarmedconflict–whereprovisionofsomeinformation,funds,orservicestothegroupmaybeunavoidable-wouldbeathighriskofincurringcriminalresponsibility.AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIthereforerecommendthatthereferencetoArticle4beomittedfromArticle9.Recital8oftheDirectiveshouldalsobeamendedaccordingly.Furthermore,thetextshouldclarifythattheoffencesenvisagedinArticle9haveasufficientlydirectconnectionwiththeprincipaloffence,mustbedonewithintent(includingtocommitorotherwiseparticipateinameaningfulmannerintheprincipaloffence),havearealandforeseeableriskthatsuchprincipalcriminalconductwouldinfacttakeplace,andthatthecriminalisedbehaviourmustbewilfulorvoluntary.Article10:“Organising or otherwise facilitating travelling abroad for terrorism” TheprovisionforoffencesoforganisationorfacilitationoftravellingabroadunderArticle10raisesconcernsduetoitsoverbroadscopeofapplication.Inparticular,thecurrentwordingdoesnotexplicitlyrequirethattheactoforganizationorfacilitationconcernedmustatleastcarryarealriskofhavinganactualimpactorrealinfluenceon,orsufficientcausalorproximatelinkwith,theprincipaloffence.Wearefurthermoreconcernedthatthisprovisiondoesnotseemtorequirespecificintenttofacilitatethecommissionoftheprincipaloffence,inadditiontotheintenttofacilitatetravel.AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIthereforerecommendthatthescopeoftheoffenceunderArticle10beconfinedtocaseswhichatleastcarryarealriskofhavinganactualimpactorrealinfluenceon,orsufficientcausalorproximatelinkwith,theprincipaloffence,andwherethereisawilfulandspecificintenttofacilitatethecommissionoftheprincipaloffence.

14

Article15:“Relationship to terrorist offences” Article15stipulatesthatforoffencesundertheDirective(withtheexceptionofoffencesunderArticle3)tobecommitted,itisnotonlyunnecessarythat“aterroristoffencebecommitted”,butitisalsounnecessary“toestablishanylinkwithaspecificterroristoffence,or,insofarasArticles9to11areconcerned,withanyspecificoffencesrelatedtoterroristactivities”.Inparticular,thissecondaspectcreatestheriskthatconductwillbecriminalisedintheabsenceofanyproximitytoaprincipalterrorism-relatedprincipaloffence.Furthermore,theprovisioncreatesconfusioninregardtothespecificprovisionsineachofthesubstantivearticlesitrefersto,eachofwhichmakeprovisionforthelinkagesrequiredtoaterrorism-relatedprincipaloffence.AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIthereforerecommendthat,atminimum,thephrase“norshallitbenecessarytoestablishalinktoaspecificterroristoffenceor,insofarastheoffencesinArticles9to11areconcerned,tospecificoffensesrelatedtoterroristactivities”bedeletedfromArticle15.Article16:“Aiding or abetting, inciting and attempting”ConcernsastothelackoflegalcertaintyandpotentialforarbitraryapplicationofoffencesundertheDirectiveareexacerbatedbyArticle16criminalizingaidingorabetting,incitementorattemptofoffencesundertheDirective.Inordertomeetstandardsofforeseeabilityundertheprincipleoflegality,anypreparatoryoffence,suchastheoffenceofattemptunderArticle16.3,musthaveacloseconnectiontothecommissionoftheprincipalcriminaloffence,witharealandforeseeableriskthatsuchprincipalcriminalconductwouldinfacttakeplace.Moreover,criminalprosecutionsolelybasedonexpressionsofmotivationbytheindividual,andwithoutmoreconcretemanifestationofanyintenttoactuallycarryoutaprincipalcriminalact,wouldappeartocriminalizeexpressionandmanifestationsratherthanobjectivecriminalconduct.Thisriskisheightenedwheretheconducttobecriminalizedistheattempttocarryoutanact.Article16shouldrequireasufficientlydirectconnectionwithaprincipalcriminalactandstipulatethataclearandunequivocalintenttocommitoractuallycontributetosuchanacthastobeestablished.Article18:“Mitigating circumstances” and grounds for exclusion of responsibilityArticle18providesthatStatesmayallowforthereductionofpenaltiesforoffencesundertheDirectiveincaseswheretheoffender“renouncesterroristactivity”orprovidescertaintypesofusefulinformationtotheauthorities.AlthoughtheArticleisentitled“mitigatingcircumstances”,thisdescriptioncouldbemisconstrued,asmitigatingcircumstancesinsentencingaregenerallyunderstoodtorefertocircumstanceslinkedtothecontestedcriminalact,thatmaydecreasesentencesbutdonotexcludecriminalresponsibility.Bycontrast,article18(b)referstoassistanceintheinvestigationofothercriminaloffences.Indeed,theFrameworkDecisioncorrectlytitlesthisverysameprovisionas“particularcircumstances”.TheDirectiveshouldincludelanguagethatensuresdomesticcourtstakefullyintoaccountanymitigatingcircumstancesprovidedforbycriminallawduring

15

sentencing,andanyothergroundforexclusionofcriminalresponsibility.Thisisparticularlyimportantgiventherolethatduressandcoercioncanplayinforcingindividualstocarryoutcriminalacts,includingrelatedtoterrorism,andduetothefactthatjuvenilesandindividualswithdiminishedmentalcapacitieswillattimesfindthemselveswrappedupinthetypeofbehaviourthattheDirectiveaddresses.24WethereforerecommendthattheDirectiveincludeprovisionsrelatingtomitigatingcircumstancesandgroundsforexclusionofresponsibilitytraditionallyavailableundernationalcriminallaw,besidesthecurrentprovisionlistinggroundsaffectingpenalties.IfArticle18retainsitscurrentscope,itshouldbere-titled“particularcircumstances”andanyreferencetomitigatingcircumstancesshouldbemadeinaseparatearticle.Article22:Protection of and assistance to victims of terrorism AmnestyInternational,theICJ,andOSJIandOSEPIwelcometheassistanceandsupportservicesincludedinthisArticleandsuggestmakingitclearthatallassistancetothevictimsofterrorismshouldbeprovidedinthebestinterestofthevictimsandundertheprincipleof“donoharm”.

24TheInternationalCriminalCourt’sRulesofProcedureandEvidence,underRule145,listasmitigatingcircumstances,interalia,“[t]hecircumstancesfallingshortofconstitutinggroundsforexclusionofcriminalresponsibility,suchassubstantiallydiminishedmentalcapacityorduress.”