Ministers’ Deputies
CM Documents
CM(2002)110 (restricted) 1 August 2002
——————————————
806 Meeting, 4 September 2002
10 Legal questions
10.1 Multidisciplinary Group on International Action against Terrorism (GMT) -
Abridged report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 2-3 July 2002)[1]
——————————————
1-3. Opening of the meeting, adoption of the agenda and communication by the Secretariat
1. The fourth plenary meeting of the Multidisciplinary Group on action against Terrorism (GMT) was held in Strasbourg on 2 (afternoon) and 3 July 2002, immediately after the third meeting of its two working parties, the GMT-Rev and GMT-Rap/Suivi. The agenda appears in Appendix I to the present document. The meeting was opened by Mr De Koster, Chair of the GMT and the Secretariat reported on developments since the last meeting of the GMT. The GMT approved the draft report of the 3rd meeting of the GMT (document GMT(2002)7) and authorised that it be posted on the GMT web site.
4. Decisions of the Committee of Ministers concerning the GMT
2. The GMT examined the Committee of Ministers’ decisions regarding the Committee on the basis of a document prepared by the Secretariat (document GMT(2002) 8).
3. The Chairman referred to the final communiqué of the 110th session of the Committee of Ministers held in Vilnius on 3 May 2002. He noted that on that occasion the Ministers discussed the theme “International action against terrorism - the contribution of the Council of Europe” and in that context assessed the progress of the work carried out with regard to the three cornerstones which they had defined for the Council of Europe contribution to international action against terrorism, namely: intensifying legal cooperation to combat terrorism, safeguarding fundamental values and investing in democracy. On this basis, they agreed on a number of guidelines for future action.
4. From the outset, the Ministers reiterated that States have an obligation to protect their populations against all forms of terrorism. The main contribution of the Organisation is to strengthen the legal basis of counter-terrorist measures, while fully respecting human rights and complying with the demands of democracy and the rule of law, as well as to help eradicate the roots of terrorism by fighting discrimination, intolerance and extremism and promoting multicultural and inter-religious dialogue.
5. The Ministers took note with satisfaction of the first report of the Multidisciplinary Group on international action against Terrorism (GMT) set up last November. They expressed their political will that efforts be sustained in the areas identified by the GMT, including the strengthening of international cooperation, through the updating of the 1977 European Convention on the suppression of terrorism.
6. The Ministers reaffirmed their support for the Organisation’s efforts to combat terrorism, in particular by examining the possibility of setting up a specific mechanism to follow up the Council of Europe’s action in this field.
7. Accordingly, they instructed the GMT to prepare a draft protocol to the European Convention on the suppression of terrorism, and noted that a new report will be submitted to them for their next session.
8. The Ministers welcomed the work on draft guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism, which is being carried out by the Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH). These are to be finalised by the latter in June 2002 and will lay down the principles to be observed by member States and all States intending to respect human rights and the rule of law in the struggle against terrorism.
9. The Ministers recalled that the general principle that underlies these guidelines is that respect for human rights is not an obstacle to the fight against terrorism. The obligation for States to protect the fundamental rights, in particular the right to life, of everyone within their jurisdiction against terrorist acts requires them to take efficient measures to fight against terrorism. These measures must, however, be reasonable and proportionate, and it is important, therefore, to strike a balance between the obligation to take protective measures against terrorism and the obligation to protect and defend human rights and fundamental freedoms.
10. The Ministers noted the additional contribution made in the field of preventing and eliminating the causes of terrorism. This included the Council of Europe’s work to foster greater social cohesion and pay more attention to cultural and religious diversity, with full respect on all sides for the fundamental values of democracies. The Ministers called for efforts to develop schemes aimed at multicultural and inter-religious dialogue at different levels (north-south, transfrontier, regional and local). They confirmed their interest in programmes aimed at improving the control of migratory flows and integration of migrants, whose fundamental rights must be safeguarded.
11. The Ministers also welcomed the concerted action carried out - parallel to intergovernmental work - in the field of interparliamentary co-operation. Particular reference was made to the recent Interparliamentary Forum in St Petersburg, organised on the joint initiative of the Interparliamentary Assembly of Member Nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in co-operation with the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE and the European Parliament. The Ministers stressed that the support of populations, through their elected representatives, is indispensable.
12. Lastly, the Ministers expressed their firm belief that the fight against terrorism could be well served by strengthening regional co-operation on this issue.
13. The Secretariat referred to the 795th meeting of the Committee of Ministers at Deputies’ level (Strasbourg, 14 and 15 May 2002) and noted that “on the basis of the Communiqué of the 110th Session, of the “Vilnius Declaration on Regional Co-operation and the Consolidation of Democratic Stability in Greater Europe” and of the Conclusions of the Chair, and in the light of the interventions made by the Ministers on 3 May” the Deputies instructed the Secretariat and the relevant expert committees (in particular the GMT and the CDDH), as well as their Working Group GT-Dialogue, to continue their work on the contribution of the Council of Europe to the international action against terrorism and to report back when appropriate.
14. Further to that, the Secretariat referred to the 796th meeting of the Committee of Ministers at Deputies’ level (Strasbourg, 22 May 2002) at which the Deputies considered the abridged report of the 3rd meeting of the GMT held in Strasbourg on 10 and 11 April 2002 and decided to take note of the Opinion of the GMT on the question of cyber-terrorism and transmitted it to the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) for information. They also decided to extend until 31 December 2002 the deadline set for the GMT in Decision No. CM/826/06022002, for the drawing up of an opinion on Parliamentary Assembly
Recommendation 1550 (2002). In addition, the Deputies took note of the abridged report the 3rd meeting of the GMT as a whole and the Chairman of the Deputies noted that he would send a letter to the Chairman of the GMT asking him to indicate in order of priority the GMT’s proposals for further action; to explain how the GMT intends to further elaborate its proposals; to make proposals as to who will implement and develop the actions proposed; to set a timeframe for the execution of the proposed actions; and to make suggestions about the monitoring of the implementation of the GMT’s proposals (this letter was sent to the Chairman of the GMT on 28 May 2002 and is reproduced in document GMT(2002) 8).
5. 25th Conference of European Ministers of Justice (Sofia, Spring 2003)
15. The GMT was informed that at its 77th meeting (Strasbourg, 27-31 May 2002) the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) discussed about the preparation of the 25th Conference of European Ministers of Justice to be held in Sofia in the Spring of 2003. In this context, the CDCJrecalled that at their 24th Conference held in Moscow in 2001 the European Ministers of Justice had decided, in their Resolution N°1 on combating international terrorism “to remain in close contact on these matters, in particular in order to review the steps taken to give effect to this Resolution, at the latest on the occasion of their next Conference”. In order to carry out this work the CDCJ requested the Secretariat to consult the GMT on the best way to report to the 25th Conference on the steps taken to give effect to this Resolution.
16. The GMT decided to consider this matter at its next meeting (see item 13 below) in the light of the outcome of discussions of the GMT-Rap/Suivi’s work (see item 7 below).
6-7. The GMT’s programme of work and 3rd meeting of the GMT’s working parties: GMT-Rev and GMT-Rap/Suivi
17. The GMT was informed how its two working parties, the GMT-Rev and GMT-Rap –renamed GMT-Rap/Suivi after the 110th meeting of the Committee of Ministers (see items 4 above and 6 below) - were implementing their terms of reference, and of the comments submitted by delegations following the third meeting of the GMT regarding the GMT’s work (see documents GMT(2002)9 and addendum –prior comments by delegations are included in documents GMT (2002)1 and addenda 1 and 2, GMT(2002) 5 and addendum).
18. The GMT was informed about the outcome of the work of the Group of Specialists on Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism (DH-S-TER) under the authority of the Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH) (respectively documents DH-S-TER (2002)10 and CDDH(2002)10 Addendum 1).
a. Presentation and discussion on the work of the GMT-Rev work on the updating of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (ETS 090)
19. The Chair of the GMT-Rev, Mr Favre (France), informed the members of the GMT about the third meeting of the GMT-Rev held in Strasbourg on 1 and 2 (morning) July 2002.
20. In line with the specific terms of reference of the GMT, the GMT-Rev had continued to examine the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (ECT) with a view to its possible revision, on the basis of the general principles identified at its first meeting, particularly the need to be realistic and pragmatic, to avoid overlapping with the work under way in other fora, to avoid the subjects on which it was obvious that it would not be possible to reach a consensus, to reflect the specificity of the Council of Europe in the field of the fight against terrorism, and to retain the ECT’s role as an instrument for the depoliticisation of terrorist offences with a view to extradition.
21. The GMT-Rev pursued its examination of the ECT’s articles with a view to their revision, on the basis of the results of its 1st and 2nd meetings (as reflected in GMT-Rev (2002) Misc 5 – Appendix IV to document GMT(2002) 7) and the reference document drawn up by the Secretariat (document GMT (2002) 1).
22. In particular, the GMT-Rev examined Articles 8 and 12 to 16 of the ECT, the Secretariat’s proposal for new articles regarding amendment procedures to the Convention and a number of articles to be included in the final clauses to the Protocol. The result of the GMT-Rev’s work appears in Appendix II to the present document.
23. The Chair of the GMT-Rev then referred to the detailed discussions on the ECT’s articles that had taken place at the meeting of the GMT-Rev.
24. With regard to Article 8 of the ECT, the Chairman recalled that at the last meeting, the delegations were invited to consider whether or not to refer to the grounds for rejection set out in paragraph 2 of Article 5, and also with regard to mutual assistance. Given the important consequences of such an addition, following the GMT-Rev’s suggestion, the GMT had agreed to submit the question to the DH-S-TER/CDDH and to the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) for opinion. On the basis of the opinions received from these committees –respectively in documents CDDH (2002) 10 and CDPC (2002) Misc. 5 rev, the GMT-Rev decided not to propose amendments to this Article.
25. With regard to Article 8bis in appendix IV to the last GMT meeting report –document GMT(2002)7-, the Chairman recalled that at its last meeting, the GMT-Rev had agreed to split Article 3 in two different Articles and make a new Article of its paragraph 2 which should be placed following Article 8.
26. With regard to Article 12 of the ECT, the Chairman noted that a technical adjustment was necessary.
27. With regard to Article 13 of the ECT which currently provides the reservation regime of the Convention, the Chairman noted that discussions had been particularly interesting and had permitted delegations to learn about the positions of other delegations and the problems they encounter. He summarised the positions of delegations as follows: (a) a vast majority of delegations were in favour of the deletion of this Article as it now stands, (b) some delegations had a more open position and, although they would prefer the deletion of Article 13 as it now stands, could agree to a reservation clause if substantial amendments were made to this Article in order to reduce its scope and provide for reservations only on very specific grounds which in any event could not include the “political character” of the terrorist offence, recalled that a technical adjustment was necessary, and (c) few delegations were in favour of maintaining Article 13 as it now stands, notably as far as the political exception was concerned.
28. With regard to Article 14 of the ECT, the Chairman noted that it would remain unchanged.
29. With regard to Article 15 of the ECT, the Chairman noted that a technical adjustment would also be necessary and that it would be deleted if it was decided finally to open the ECT to non member States.
30. Similarly, with regard to Article 16 of the ECT, the Chairman noted that a series of technical adjustments would be necessary although he noted that the Article had not been considered thoroughly by the GMT-Rev due to lack of time.
31. With regard to the new proposals submitted by the Secretariat regarding the amendment procedures to be included in the revised Convention, Articles n and n2, the Chairman noted that at the last meeting of the GMT-Rev, the Committee had agreed to make provisions for an amendment regime in the revised Convention and in particular to provide for two different procedures: a simplified or “fast track” procedure for updating the list of treaties contained in Article 1, paragraph 1 (revised)of the ECT, and a general or “classic” procedure for amendments to other provisions in the Convention. The Chairman also noted that a technical adjustment was necessary. In accordance with the instructions given by the Committee, the Secretariat prepared proposals for these procedures based on existing Council of Europe conventions. The Chairman noted that the simplified or fast procedure had a very limited scope because it concerned only a very specific provision in the Convention and because proposals for amendment would have to meet with a series of conditions laid out in paragraph 1 of Article n.
32. With regard to the final clauses of the Protocol, Articles n3-n5, the Chairman noted that they were standard final clauses for this kind of instrument. He drew the attention of the GMT to Article n4 which was particularly important since it was linked to the fact that the protocol under preparation was an amending protocol and therefore could only enter into force once all the parties to the ECT had become parties to the Protocol.
33. The GMT then held an exchange of views on the issues referred to by the Chairman of the GMT-Rev.
34. One delegation stressed its scrutiny reservation with regard to Article 5 paragraph 2, insofar as this article did not include life imprisonment as a ground for refusing extradition, and because it would allow for extradition to countries with the death penalty –even where sufficient guarantees would be given that it would not be applied- which would be in contradiction with its constitutional provisions. Pending the outcome of the discussions on Article 13, on reservations, this delegation reserved its decision.
35. With regard to Article 9several delegations noted that it required further consideration since it was of crucial significance for the efficiency of the Convention. They expressed reservations about the possibility for the of the CDPC to secure functions other than the classical ones in relation to conventions and stressed that an additional specific follow-up mechanism should be devised. Moreover, they called for the reinforcement of the CDPC’s role in relation to terrorism which is currently insufficient.
36. With regard to Article 12 of the ECT, one delegation proposed its deletion given the nature of the treaty in question, which should not allow for limitations. Several delegations noted that this provision was standard in Council of Europe treaties and did not represent an obligation but a possibility which aimed at facilitating accession by those States which had the foreign relations competence for various self-governing territories. Other delegations noted that while maintaining this provision, it should be revised in order to ensure that the declarations made by virtue thereof would include the territories to which the convention would apply and those to which it would not apply. The GMT decided to ask the GMT-Rev to further consider this Article and propose a formulation at its next meeting.
37. With regard to Article 13 several delegations stressed their position that it should be deleted altogether since it was in contradiction with the aim of the treaty. Most delegations thanked the delegation of Spain for its efforts to find a suitable compromise and the proposal for the redrafting of this provision (GMT-Rev(2002)8 rev 2) which was acceptable to them since it excluded the political clause and should be used as a working basis. In this connection, one delegation, which also welcomed this proposal, stressed that it needed a reservation possibility based on the protection of constitutionally protected human rights and agreed that the political clause should be deleted.
38. The delegation of Spain stressed that their preference would also be for deletion but that a compromise should be found. In this connection, it noted that by making sure that the reservation possibility would be restricted to a case by case basis and requiring that it would be duly based on the protection of constitutionally protected human rights and subject to scrutiny by an outside body, the problems posed by the political clause would be removed. It stressed that what was clearly unacceptable was that countries could refuse extradition on purely discretionary grounds which would not have to be justified and would not be subject to any control, in particular were the refusal would be based on political grounds.
39. Another delegation maintained their support for the political clause as the possibility of refusing extradition on such grounds was a principle of constitutional character.
40. The Chairman stressed that this was a core provision of the ECT and urged delegations to further reflect on it and focus the discussions on this question at the next meeting of the GMT-Rev and the GMT.
41. With regard to Article n2 one delegation recalled that it had made an alternative proposal at the GMT-Rev meeting and that its proposal had met with the interest of some delegations. This proposal was based on the general procedure (Article n) but would require less ratifications for its entry into force. Various delegations and the Chairman of the GMT-Rev supported the wording of Article n2 as it resulted from the work of the GMT-Rev on grounds that it reflected the policy of the Committee and that it would reflect a common approach by the States Party to the ECT while the alternative proposal would have the result that the amendment would only enter into force for a limited number of States.
42. The Chairman invited the delegations to submit comments on these items to the Secretariat by mid September 2002 at the latest and called upon them to do everything necessary to ensure the successful conclusion of a draft amending protocol in accordance with the decisions taken by the Ministers at their 110th session and in time for its presentation at their 111th session in November 2002.
b. Progress report on the action which the Council of Europe could usefully carry out in the field of the fight against terrorism
43. The Working Group for the follow-up to the decisions adopted by the 110th Ministerial Session of the Committee of Ministers in the field of the fight against terrorism (GMT-Rap/Suivi) of the Multidisciplinary Group on international action against terrorism (GMT) held its 3rd meeting on 1 and 2 (morning) July 2002 at the Headquarters of the Council of Europe. Its Chairman, Mr A. Papaioanniou (Greece), gave the members of the plenary GMT an account of the discussions and progress made by the Working party.
44. The Working Group for the follow-up to the decisions adopted by the 110th Ministerial Session of the Committee of Ministers in the field of the fight against terrorism (GMT-Rap/Suivi) of the Multidisciplinary Group on international action against terrorism (GMT) held its 3rd meeting on 1 and 2 (morning) July 2002 at the Headquarters of the Council of Europe with Mr. Athanassios Papaionnou (Greece) in the Chair.
45. The GMT-Rap/Suivi examined the follow-up which could be proposed by the GMT to the decisions adopted by the 110th Ministerial Session of the Committee of Ministers (Vilnius, 3 May 2002) in the field of the fight against terrorism, taking into account the Final Communiqué of this Session, the Conclusions of the Chair and the relevant decisions of the Ministers’ Deputies (see Appendix III to the present document) and a letter dated 28 May 2002 by Ambassador Gérard PHILLIPS (Luxembourg), in his capacity as Chairman of the Ministers’ Deputies, to the Chair of the GMT which raised a number of questions on the future of the GMT.
46. At the end of the discussions, the GMT-Rap/Suivi agreed on the following:
a. specific proposals for further action by the Council of Europe in the field of the fight against terrorism are contained in the Progress Report and deserve to be developed further by the appropriate bodies within the Council of Europe;
b. to propose to develop without delay the following issues:
(i) further study of the concept of “apologie du terrorisme” and of “incitement to terrorism” (see paragraph 8 of the Progress Report);
(ii) special investigative techniques (see paragraphs 10-12 of the Progress Report);
(iii) protection of witnesses and pentiti (see paragraphs 13-17 of the Progress Report);
(iv) international law enforcement co-operation (paragraph 28-31 of the Progress Report);
(v) fight against the financing of terrorism (see paragraphs 31-42 of the Progress Report);
(vi) Ids matters in relation to terrorism (see paragraphs 53-54 of the Progress Report).
c. the Council of Europe, while developing the activities in the fight against terrorism, should strengthen Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, multicultural and inter-religious dialogue through appropriate initiatives, such as education programmes and public awareness campaigns (see paragraphs 67-71 of the Progress Report);
d. as regards the bodies which could deal with these issues, the GMT-Rap/Suivi suggested the following:
(i) “Apologie du terrorisme” and “incitement to terrorism”
47. This question could be dealt with by the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), in co-operation with other relevant Steering Committees (such as the Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), the Steering Committee on Mass Media (CDMM) and the Steering Committees in the education and culture fields) (by the end of 2004).
(ii) Special investigative techniques
48. This question could be dealt with by the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) (by the end of 2004). However, should the GMT’s terms of reference be renewed (see Part d below), it will provide the CDPC with a list of issues to be developed further on this matter (by the end of 2003).
(iii) Protection of witnesses and pentiti
49. This question could be dealt with by the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) (by the end of 2004). However, should the GMT’s terms of reference be renewed (see Part d below), it will provide the CDPC with a list of specific issues to be developed further on this matter (by the end of 2003).
(iv) International law enforcement co-operation
50. This question could be dealt with by the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) and, in particular, the PC-OC (by the end of 2004).
(v) Fight against the financing of terrorism
a. Strengthen further (including through a full inclusion of the MONEYVAL needs in the Council of Europe budget) the work of the Select Committee of Experts on the evaluation of anti-money laundering measures MONEYVAL in order to enable it to give high priority to the evaluation of the measures taken by States to comply with the Special FATF Recommendation on the financing of terrorism: this is to be implemented by the MONEYVAL (this is an on-going activity, which should be strengthened as from the beginning of 2003).
b. Consider further these issues in the framework of the discussions on the possible up-dating of the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (ETS N° 141): this question could be dealt with by the CDPC (the CDPC should take a decision on this matter in 2002); if further action is required, time should be allowed until the end of 2004 to deal with it.
c. Call on States which have not yet done so to sign, ratify and implement the 1999 UN Convention on the Suppression of terrorist financing: this question could be dealt with by the Committee of Ministers itself (this measure could be implemented without delay by the Committee of Ministers).
(vi) IDs matters in relation to terrorism
51. At its last meeting (27 to 31 May 2002) the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) proposed to the Committee of Ministers the setting up of a Group of Specialists (CJ-S-ID) to deal with this issue. The Committee of Ministers is expected to take a decision on the matter in September 2002. If a decision is taken to set up such a Group of Specialists, the report is expected to be finalised by the end of June 2003.
52. The GMT-Rap/Suivi also discussed the statement by the Ministers at their 110th Session that “reaffirmed their support for the Organisation's efforts to combat terrorism, in particular through examining the possibility of setting up a specific follow-up mechanism to the Council of Europe's action in this field”.
53. The GMT-Rap/Suivi agreed to propose to the GMT [without prejudice to the provisions of the draft Article 9 of the draft Amending Protocol to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism], to renew and update its terms of reference for one year (until the end of 2003) with a view to:
a. ensuring the coherent and co-ordinated approach of the Council of Europe’s action in the field of the fight against terrorism, in particular in pursuance of the Progress Report, by taking due account of the activities of bodies working within the Council of Europe and within other international fora and by working in close co-operation with them;
b. making proposals to the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) on specific issues to be developed further concerning (i) special investigative techniques and (ii) the protection of witnesses and pentiti;
c. making appropriate proposals to the Committee of Ministers for new activities to intensify the Council of Europe’s action in the field of the fight against terrorism, including preventive measures, while preserving and promoting Human Rights and fundamental freedoms.
54. Finally, the GMT-Rap/Suivi agreed to present a revised document to the GMT plenary on the above issues.
55. The GMT examined the document prepared by the GMT-Rap/Suivi on the possible follow-up to be proposed to the 110th Session of the Committee of Ministers.
56. After an extensive discussion on the text, the majority of the Delegations in the GMT agreed with the text presented by the GMT-Rap/Suivi (with some minor adjustments – see the last version of the document contained in Appendix IV, document GMT(2002)10 rev 2), while certain Delegations expressed some reservations on it, in particular as regards the possible extension of the terms of reference of the GMT. This text will be re-examined by the GMT at its next meeting in October 2002, with a view to its adoption.
57. The Chairman invited the delegations to submit comments on these items to the Secretariat by mid September 2002.
8-10 Information on work carried out in the Council of Europe, on national measures against terrorism and work carried out in other international fora
58. Concerning work carried out in the Council of Europe of relevance to the GMT, members of the GMT were informed that at its 77th meeting (Strasbourg, 27-31 May 2002) the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) considered the work of the GMT. In the light of the discussions that took place, and in particular the recommendations of the European Ministers of Justice in Resolution N°1 adopted at their Conference in Moscow in October 2001, the proposals made by the GMT and the studies which had been prepared, the CDCJ decided to propose the setting up of a Group of Specialists on identity and terrorism issues (CJ‑S‑ID), whose terms of reference would start this year and expire at the end of June 2003. The CDCJ considered that the results of the work of the CJ‑S‑ID would enable the CDCJ to take further and better informed decisions on whether legal and practical problems exist in the field of identity and identity documents, and whether, and if so, how, the Council of Europe may make a useful contribution in the context of international action against terrorism. Furthermore, the work of the CJ‑S‑ID would contribute to the discussions at the 25th Conference of European Ministers of Justice (see item 5 above). The CDCJ agreed that the CJ‑S‑ID would have to be composed of specialists familiar with the work of a variety of different disciplines and that, after each meeting, it should submit reports for consideration by the CDCJ or its Bureau. The CDCJ invited the Committee of Ministers to approve the draft specific terms of reference of the CJ‑S‑ID.
59. Further to that, the GMT was informed that at its 23rd meeting (Strasbourg, 4-5 March 2002) the Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI) considered developments regarding the fight against terrorism and was informed on work being carried out in the Council of Europe and other international fora. The Secretariat recalled that at its 765 bis meeting (Strasbourg, 21 September 2001) the Committee of Ministers at Deputies’ level had considered the follow-up to the Committee of Ministers Declaration of 12 September 2001 on the Fight against International Terrorism and, among other decisions, had instructed the CAHDI, in conjunction with its Observatory on Reservations to International Treaties, to consider the question of reservations to regional and universal conventions relating to terrorism and to hold exchanges of views – with the involvement of observers – on conventions currently being drafted in the United Nations with a view to co-ordinating the positions taken by member states. As a result, the CAHDI agreed to include the examination of reservations to international treaties relating to terrorism in the remit of the European Observatory on Reservations to International Treaties, in accordance with a specific document which the Secretariat was asked to draft.
60. Concerning developments at national level, the delegates of Azerbaijan and Ukraine informed the GMT about recent developments and at their request two documents regarding their respective situations were distributed (document GMT (2002) Inf. 18 and 22).
61. Concerning work carried out in other international fora, the Chairman informed the GMT that Mrs Kabelka (Austria), member of the GMT Bureau had represented the GMT at an international conference on terrorism held in Sofia (June 2002) at the initiative of the Bulgarian authorities. Mrs Kabelka reported on the conference.
62. The Secretariat referred to work underway in the Organisation of American States (OAS) regarding the preparation of a draft inter-American convention against terrorism. This draft was adopted by a Working
Group of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the OAS Permanent Council, on 21 March 2002.
63. Further to that, the Secretariat referred to an international conference on The Contribution of the Council of Europe to the European Union’s Acquis, held in Santiago de Compostela on 3 and 4 June 2002, with the participation of representatives from the institutions and the member States of the two organisations (see www.legal.coe.int/santiago). At the close of the conference, participants adopted conclusions which welcomed the work of the Multidisciplinary Group on International Action against Terrorism (GMT) of the Council of Europe and called on the Council of Europe and the European Union:
· to improve the knowledge of and access to all existing European instruments relevant for the fight against crime in general and terrorism in particular;
· to ensure better co-ordination and consistency in the drafting of new instruments, using wherever possible harmonised language;
· to revise the existing rules and practices whereby States may refuse or otherwise hold back co-operation for non-legal reasons with a view to abolishing them or reducing their effects;
· to strengthen their respective arsenals of counter-terrorist measures, while fully respecting human rights and complying with the demands of democracy and the rule of law;
· to improve the protection of victims within the criminal justice system;
· to improve the training of national judges, prosecutors and investigators in all questions relating to judicial co-operation in criminal matters and to promote such training in candidate countries for EU membership;
· to establish contacts between Eurojust and the Council of Europe with a view to exploring the possibility of concluding a co-operation agreement, as provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 27 of Eurojust’s constituent text.
Participants further called specifically on the Council of Europe:
· to actively pursue its intergovernmental work, in the fields of both standard-setting and mutual evaluation, with a view in particular to the realisation of a European area of shared justice;
· to step up its assistance to candidate countries for EU membership and to other countries not candidates for EU membership, in particular in the field of justice and home affairs;
· to ensure that countries not candidates for EU membership remain fully integrated into effective pan-European mechanisms of judicial cooperation.
64. Finally, the Secretariat referred to an International Symposium on Terrorism organised by the Spanish Council of the Judiciary in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, 17-19 June 2002. At the close of proceedings, participants adopted a declaration which inter alia stated that:
The struggle against terrorism should be based on international support and co-operation, not only between developed countries but also with developing nations. Collaboration and co-ordination between institutions specifically designed to combat this form of organised crime is also essential. Co-operation should encompass not only judicial authorities and law enforcement agencies but also Public Administration and civil society.
In this context, international organisations channel the international community’s joint activity, which is essential to respond to the challenges posed by the new forms of terrorism. Initiatives launched by the United Nations, European Union and Council of Europe are in line with this approach, and they should be welcomed and supported.
The phenomenon of terrorism should be combated solely within the framework provided by the rule of law, by employing the entire suite of mechanisms available in virtue of the rule of law, while ensuring terrorists do not make use of them.
65. The Chair invited delegations to continue submitting information on these items to the Secretariat, so as to benefit from the GMT’s role as a clearing-house.
11-14. Future work, other business, dates of future meetings and close
The GMT decided to hold its 5th plenary meeting and the 4th meetings of its Working Parties from 7 to 10 October 2002. The Chairman noted that there would be a first session of the plenary of the GMT on 7 October 2002 in the morning and that the working parties would resume their work in the afternoon of that day. It was stressed that the GMT should concentrate this meeting on the core issues relating to the draft amending protocol and other remaining issues in light of the GMT’s specific and ad hoc terms of reference as well as of the decisions adopted by the Ministers at the Committee of Ministers’ 110th Session (see item 4).
Appendix I
AGENDA
1. Opening of the meeting by the Chairman, Mr Philippe de KOSTER / Ouverture de la réunion par le Président, M. Philippe de KOSTER
2. Adoption of the agenda / Adoption de l’ordre du jour
3. Communication by the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe / Communication du Secrétariat Général du Conseil de l’Europe
4. Decisions of the Committee of Ministers concerning the GMT / Décisions du Comité des Ministres concernant le GMT
5. 25th Conference of European Ministers of Justice (Sofia, spring 2003) – Contribution of the GMT/25e Conférence des Ministres européens de la Justice (Sofia, printemps 2003) – Contribution du GMT
6. Programme of work of the GMT / Programme de travail du GMT
7. 3rd meeting of the Working Groups of the GMT: GMT-Rev and GMT-Rap/Suivi /
3e réunion des Groupes de Travail du GMT: GMT-Rev et GMT-Rap/Suivi
a. Presentation and discussion of the work of the GMT-Rev on the updating of the European Convention on the suppression of terrorism (ETS 90) / Présentation et débat sur les travaux du GMT-Rev concernant la mise à jour de la Convention européenne pour la répression du terrorisme (STE 90)
b. GMT-Rap/Suivi : Follow up which could be proposed by the GMT to the decisions adopted by the 110th Ministerial Session of the Committee of Ministers in the field of the fight against terrorism/Suivi qui pourrait être proposé par le GMT aux décisions adoptées lors de la 110e session ministérielle du Comité des Ministres dans le domaine de la lutte contre le terrorisme
8. Information on work carried out in the Council of Europe / Information sur les travaux en cours au Conseil de l’Europe
9. Information on measures taken at national level against terrorism / Information sur les mesures prises au niveau national contre le terrorisme
10. Information concerning work carried out in other international fora / Information sur les travaux en cours dans d’autres instances internationales
11. Future work / Travaux futurs
12. Other business / Divers
13. Date of next meetings / Dates des prochaines réunions
14. Close / Fin des travaux
Appendix II
Proposals concerning revised articles of convention ETS 090
(additions in relation to original wording of Articles in bold)
Article 1[2]
1. For the purposes of extradition between Contracting States, none of the following offences shall be regarded as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives:
a. an offence within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft - The Hague, 16.12.1970;
b. an offence within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation – Montreal, 23.9.1971;
c. an offence within the scope of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Personnel - New York, 14.12.1973;
d. an offence within the scope of the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages - New York, 17.12.1979;
e. an offence within the scope of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material – Vienna, 3.3.1980;
f. an offence within the scope of the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation – Montreal, 24.2.1988;
g. an offence within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation – Rome, 10.3.1988;
h. an offence within the scope of the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf – Rome, 10.3.1988;
i. an offence within the scope of the UN Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings - New York, 15.12.1997; and
j. an offence within the scope of the UN Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism - New York, 9.12.1999.
2. In so far as they would not be covered by the conventions listed under paragraph 1, the same shall apply, for the purpose of extradition between Contracting States, not only to the commission of those principal offences as a perpetrator but also to the attempt to commit, the participation as an accomplice of a person or group of persons who commits or attempts to commit, and the organising of or the directing of others to commit those principal offences.
Article 2
1. For the purpose of extradition between Contracting States, a Contracting State may decide not to regard as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives a serious offence involving an act of violence, other than one covered by Article 1, against the life, physical integrity or liberty of a person.
2. The same shall apply to a serious offence involving an act against property, other than one covered by Article 1, if the act created a collective danger for persons.
3. The same shall apply to the attempt to commit, the participation as an accomplice of a person or group of persons who commit or attempt to commit, and the organisation of or the directing of others to commit any of the foregoing offences.
Article 3
The provisions of all extradition treaties and arrangements applicable between Contracting States, including the European Convention on Extradition, are modified as between Contracting States to the extent that they are incompatible with this Convention.
Article 4
1. For the purpose of this Convention and to the extent that any offence mentioned in Article 1 or 2 is not listed as an extraditable offence in any extradition convention or treaty existing between Contracting States, it shall be deemed to be included as such therein. Contracting States undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. When a Contracting State which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another Contracting State with which it has no extradition treaty, the requested Contracting State may, at its option, consider this Convention as a legal basis for extradition in respect of the offences provided in Article 1 or 2.
Article 5
1. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite if the requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the request for extradition for an offence mentioned in Article 1 or 2 has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion, or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.
2. Nothing in this Convention shall be either interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite if the person subject of the extradition request risks being exposed to the death penalty, to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment, unless the requesting State provides such assurance as the requested Party considers sufficient that the death-penalty will not be imposed or that if it is imposed it will not be carried out and that the person concerned will not be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment [3].
Article 6
1. Not withstanding Article 5, each Contracting State shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over an offence mentioned in Article 1 in the case where the suspected offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him after receiving a request for extradition from a Contracting State whose jurisdiction has been established on the basis of relevant provisions of the treaty mentioned in Article 1 which defines the offence in question[4].
2. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law.
Article 7[5]
A Contracting State in whose territory a person suspected to have committed an offence mentioned in Article 1 is found and which has received a request for extradition under the conditions mentioned in Article 6, paragraph 1, shall, if it does not extradite that person, submit the case, without exception whatsoever and without undue delay, to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any offence of a serious nature under the law of that State.
Article 8[6]
1. Contracting States shall afford one another the widest measure of mutual assistance in criminal matters in connection with proceedings brought in respect of the offences mentioned in Article 1 or 2. The law of the requested State concerning mutual assistance in criminal matters shall apply in all cases. Nevertheless this assistance may not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives.
2. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to afford mutual assistance if the requested State has substantial grounds for believing that the request for mutual assistance in respect of an offence mentioned in Article 1 or 2 has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.
3. The provisions of all treaties and arrangements concerning mutual assistance in criminal matters applicable between Contracting States, including the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, are modified as between Contracting States to the extent that they are incompatible with this Convention.
The Contracting Parties may conclude between themselves bilateral or multilateral agreements in order to supplement the provisions of this Convention or to facilitate the application of the principles contained therein.
Article 9[8]
The European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) is responsible for following the application of the Convention. The CDPC :
a. shall be kept informed regarding the application of the Convention ;
b. shall do whatever is necessary to facilitate a friendly settlement of any difficulty which may arise out of its execution ;
c. shall make proposals with a view to facilitating or improving the application of the convention;
d. shall make proposals for amendment of the convention in accordance with Article n[9] and may give its opinion on any such proposal of amendment ;
e. shall, at the request of a Contracting Party, express an opinion on any question concerning the application of the convention ;
f. shall make recommendations to the Committee of Ministers concerning non-member States of the Council of Europe to be invited to accede to the Convention; and
g. shall submit every year to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe a report on the follow-up given to this Article in the of the application of the Convention.
Article 10
1. Any dispute between Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention, which has not been settled in the framework of Article 9, paragraph b, or by negotiation, shall, at the request of any Party to the dispute, be referred to arbitration. Each Party shall nominate an arbitrator and the arbitrators shall nominate a referee.
2. In the case of disputes involving Parties which are member States of the Council of Europe, where a Party fails to nominate its arbitrator in pursuance of paragraph 1 within the three months following the request for arbitration, the arbitrator will be nominated by the President of the European Court of Human Rights at the request of the other Party.
3. In the case of disputes involving any Party which is not a member of the Council of Europe, where a Party fails to nominate its arbitrator in pursuance of paragraph 1 within the three months following the request for arbitration, the arbitrator will be nominated by the President of the International Court of Justice at the request of the other Party.
4. In the cases covered by paragraphs 2 and 3, where the President of the Court concerned is a national of one of the Parties to the dispute, this duty shall be carried out by the Vice‑President of the Court, or if the Vice‑President is a national of one of the Parties to the dispute, by the most senior judge of the Court not being a national of one of the Parties to the dispute.
5. The procedures referred to in paragraphs 2 or 3 and 4 above apply mutatis mutandi where the arbitrators fail to agree on the nomination of a referee in accordance with paragraph 1.
6. The arbitration tribunal shall lay down its own procedure. Its decisions shall be taken by majority vote. Where a majority cannot be reached, the referee will have a casting vote. The Tribunal’s award shall be final.
Article 11
1. This Convention shall be open to signature by the member States [and the observers] of the Council of Europe. It shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
2. The Convention shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of the third instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval.
3. [The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, after consulting the European Committee on Crime Problems, may invite any State not a member of the Council of Europe, other than those referred to under paragraph 1, to accede to the Convention. The decision shall be taken by the majority provided for in Article 20 (d)[10] of the Statute of the Council of Europe and by the unanimous vote of the representatives of the Contracting States entitled to sit on the Committee of Ministers].
4. In respect of a signatory State ratifying, accepting, approving [or acceding] subsequently, the Convention shall come into force three months after the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval [or accession].
Article 12[11]
1. Any State may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, specify the territory or territories to which this Convention shall apply.
2. Any State may, when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance , approval or accession, or at any later date, by declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, extend this Convention to any other territory or territories specified in the declaration and for whose international relations it is responsible or on whose behalf it is authorised to give undertakings.
3. Any declaration made in pursuance of the preceding paragraph may, in respect of any territory mentioned in such declaration, be withdrawn by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Such withdrawal shall take effect immediately or at such later date as may be specified in the notification.
Article 13[12]
…
Article 14
N.B: Unchanged.
Article 15[13]
N.B: This Article is to be deleted if the Convention is opened to non member States of the Council of Europe.
Article 16[14]
The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify the States Party of:
a. any signature;
b. any deposit of an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession;
c. any date of entry into force of this Convention in accordance with Article 11 thereof;
d. any declaration or notification received in pursuance of the provisions of Article 12;
e. [any reservation made in pursuance of the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 1];
f. [the withdrawal of any reservation effected in pursuance of the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 2];
g. any notification received in pursuance of Article 14 and the date on which denunciation takes effect;
h. [any cessation of the effects of the Convention pursuant to Article 15] [N.B: deleted if Article 15 is deleted].
Article n[15] – Amendments to the Convention
1. Amendments to this Convention may be proposed by any State Party, the CDPC[16] or the Committee of Ministers. The proposals for amendment shall be communicated by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the States Party to this Convention.
2. After having consulted the non-member States Parties to this Convention and possibly the CDPC[17], the Committee of Ministers may adopt the amendment in accordance with the majority provided for in Article 20 (d) of the Statute of the Council of Europe. Any amendment so adopted shall be notified by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the Parties to the Convention for acceptance.
3. Any amendment adopted in accordance with the above-paragraph shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after all the Parties have informed the Secretary General of their acceptance thereof.
Article n2[18] – Amendments to Article 1, paragraph 1
1. Amendments in order to update the list of treaties mentioned in Article 1, paragraph 1 may be proposed by any State Party, the CDPC[19] or the Committee of Ministers. These proposals for amendment shall only concern treaties concluded within the United Nations, dealing specifically with international terrorism and having entered into force. They shall be communicated by the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe to the States Party to this Convention.
2. After having consulted the non-member States Party to this Convention and possibly the CDPC[20], the Committee of Ministers may adopt the proposed amendment by the majority provided for in Article 20 (d) of the Statute of the Council of Europe. This amendment shall enter into force following the expiry of a period of one year after the date on which it has been forwarded to the States Party. During such period any State Party may notify the Secretary General an objection to the entry into force of the amendment in its respect.
3. If one third of the States Party notifies the Secretary General an objection to the entry into force of the amendment, the amendment does not enter into force.
4. If less than one third of the States Party notifies an objection, the amendment enters into force for those States Parties which have not notified an objection.
5. Once an amendment has entered into force in accordance with paragraph 2 and a State Party has notified an objection to it, this amendment shall come into force on the first day of the month following the date on which this State Party has notified its acceptance to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Any objection shall be without prejudice to the other Parties’ tacit acceptance in accordance with the preceding paragraph.
Article n3
1. This Protocol shall be open for signature by member States of the Council of Europe Parties to the Convention, which may express their consent to be bound by:
a. signature without reservation as to ratification, acceptance or approval; or
b. signature subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, followed by ratification, acceptance or approval.
2. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
Article n4
This Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date on which all Parties to the Convention have expressed their consent to be bound by the Protocol, in accordance with the provisions of Article n3.
Article n5
The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify the member States of the Council of Europe of:
a. any signature;
b. the deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval;
c, the date of entry into force of this Protocol, in accordance with Article n4;
d. any other act, notification or communication relating to this Protocol.
Appendix III
Proposals for follow up to the 110th Session of the Committee of Ministers
(Vilnius, 3 May 2002)
a. Introduction
1. On the basis of the terms of reference it received by the Committee of Ministers at its 109th Session in November 2001, the Multidisciplinary Group on international action against terrorism (GMT) finalised, for the attention of the Committee of Ministers at its 110th Session (Vilnius, 3 May 2002), a Progress Report on the action which the Council of Europe could usefully carry out in the field of the fight against terrorism (CM(2002)57). This Progress Report contains (i) a report on the “state of affairs” of the discussions on the update of the 1977 Convention on the Suppression of terrorism, (ii) an indication of the need to provide for a simple, flexible and specific follow-up mechanism in the field of terrorism in order to enhance the efficiency of Council of Europe’s action in this area and (iii) proposals for legal and policy actions to be undertaken, if so decided by the Committee of Ministers, by the Council of Europe in this field.
2. In the Final Communiqué of the 110th Session, the Ministers:
i) “took note with satisfaction of the first report of the Multidisciplinary Group on international action against Terrorism (GMT) set up last November;
ii) expressed their political will that efforts be sustained in the areas identified by the GMT, including the strengthening of international cooperation, through the updating of the 1977 European Convention on the suppression of terrorism;
iii) reaffirmed their support for the Organisation's efforts to combat terrorism, in particular through examining the possibility of setting up a specific follow-up mechanism to the Council of Europe's action in this field;
iv) accordingly, instructed the GMT to prepare a draft protocol to the European Convention on the suppression of terrorism, and noted that a new report will be submitted to them for their next session.”
3. The Deputies, at their 795th meeting on 14-15 May 2002, on the basis of the Communiqué of the 110th Session, of the “Vilnius Declaration on Regional Co-operation and the Consolidation of Democratic Stability in Greater Europe” and of the Conclusions of the Chair, and in the light of the interventions made by the Ministers on 3 May 2002, inter alia, “instructed the Secretariat and the relevant experts’ committees (in particular the GMT and the CDDH), as well as their Working Group GT-Dialogue, to continue their work in the field of the contribution of the Council of Europe to the international action against terrorism and to report back when appropriate”.
4. Following these decisions, the Ministers’ Deputies, at their 796th meeting, when considering the Abridged Report of the 3rd meeting of the GMT, held an exchange of views on the future of the GMT and raised a number of questions, incorporated into a letter dated 28 May 2002 by Ambassador Gérard PHILLIPS (Luxembourg), in his capacity as Chairman of the Ministers’ Deputies, to the Chair of the GMT, Mr P. DE KOSTER (Belgium) (see copy attached to this document).
5. The letter addresses the following main 5 questions, which will be dealt with in the second part of this document: (a) indicate the order of priorities of the future actions by the GMT, (b) explain how the GMT intends to develop its proposals, (c) make proposals on which body has to implement and develop the actions proposed, (d) establish a time-table to implement the proposals for actions, (e) make proposals on the follow up of the implementation of the GMT proposals.
b. Follow up to the 110th Session of the Committee of Ministers
6. This part of this document takes as a basis the Progress Report on the action which could usefully be carried out by the Council of Europe in the field of the fight against terrorism, which was presented at the 110th Session of the Committee of Ministers in Vilnius on 3 May 2002 (see document CM(2002)57). Since the Progress Report deals already with the content of the various proposals, the indications below address only the questions put forward by the Deputies. Ultimately, it will be for the Committee of Ministers to take a final decision on whether and how these proposals ought to be implemented.
7. The GMT underlines that specific proposals for further actions of the Council of Europe in the field of the fight against terrorism are contained in the Progress Report and deserve to be developed further by the appropriate bodies within the Council of Europe.
(a) Future actions by the Council of Europe
8. Amongst the various proposals made by the GMT, the following should be developed without delay by the Council of Europe[21]:
v) further study the concept of «apologie du terrorisme » and of « incitement to terrorism» (see paragraph 8 of the Progress Report);
vi) special investigative techniques (see paragraphs 10-12 of the Progress Report);
vii) protection of witnesses and pentiti (see paragraphs 13-17 of the Progress Report);
viii) international law enforcement co-operation (paragraph 28-31 of the Progress Report);
ix) fight against the financing of terrorism (see paragraphs 31-42 of the Progress Report);
x) IDs matters in relation to terrorism (see paragraphs 53-54 of the Progress Report);
9. The Council of Europe, while developing the activities in the fight against terrorism, should strengthen Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, multicultural and inter-religious dialogue through appropriate initiatives, such as education programmes and public awareness campaigns (see paragraphs 67-71 of the Progress Report).
(b) Ways to develop the proposals
(i) «apologie du terrorisme» and of «incitement to terrorism»
10. Consideration should be given to further study the concept of «apologie du terrorisme» and of «incitement to terrorism», and to identify, inter alia, the proper balance between freedom of expression and the need to prevent terrorism.
(ii) special investigative techniques
11. Development of guidelines to facilitate and increase the effectiveness of special investigative techniques in cases of terrorism, bearing in mind Human Rights guarantees (see also the progress of the work of the DH-S-TER).
(iii) protection of witnesses and pentiti
12. Preparation of guidelines and, if necessary, a convention to strengthen the protection of witnesses and of pentiti, including through an improved international co-operation in this area, taking due account of Recommendation No. R(97)13. It could also be considered to develop a comprehensive scheme for protecting witnesses and pentiti, which apply to organised crime and other related criminal activities as well.
(iv) international law enforcement co-operation
13. Developing measures (i) to intensify and accelerate exchange of information, in particular concerning the actions and movements of terrorists and of terrorist groups and (ii) to improve mutual assistance in criminal matters in view also of the need for obtaining evidence.
(v) fight against the financing of terrorism
14. (a) Strengthening further the work of the Select Committee of Experts on the evaluation of anti-money laundering measures (MONEYVAL) in order to enable it to give high priority in particular to the
evaluation of the measures taken by States to comply with the Special FATF Recommendation on the financing of terrorism, (b) consider further these issues, either in the framework of the discussions on the possible update of the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (ETS No. 141) (c) call on States which have not yet done so to sign, ratify and implement the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the financing of terrorism.
(vi) IDs matters in relation to terrorism
15. Preparation of a report on whether legal or practical problems exist in the field of identity and identity documents in relation to terrorism, and whether, and if so how, the Council of Europe could make a useful contribution.
(c) Which body may implement and develop the actions proposed (including a time-table to implement the various proposals) ?
(i) «apologie du terrorisme » and of « incitement to terrorism»
16. This question could be dealt with by the European Committee on crime problems (CDPC), in co-operation with other relevant Steering Committees (such as the Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), the Steering Committee on Mass Media (CDMM) and the Steering Committees in the education and culture fields) (by the end of 2004).
(ii) special investigative techniques
17. This question could be dealt with by the European Committee on crime problems (CDPC) (by the end of 2004). However, the GMT, should its terms of reference be renewed (see Part d below), will provide to the CDPC a list of issues to be developed further on this matter (by the end of 2003).
(iii) protection of witnesses and pentiti
18. This question could be dealt with by the European Committee on crime problems (CDPC) (by the end of 2004). However, the GMT, should its terms of reference be renewed (see Part d below), will provide to the CDPC a list of specific issues to be developed further on this matter (by the end of 2003).
(iv) international law enforcement co-operation
19. This question could be dealt with by the European Committee on crime problems (CDPC) and, in particular, the PC-OC (by the end of 2004).
(v) fight against the financing of terrorism
20. (a) Strengthening further the work of the Select Committee of Experts on the evaluation of anti-money laundering measures (MONEYVAL) in order to enable it to give high priority in particular to the evaluation of the measures taken by States to comply with the Special FATF Recommendation on the financing of terrorism: this is to be implemented by the MONEYVAL (this is an on-going activity, which should be strengthened as from the beginning of 2003).
21. (b) Consider further these issues in the framework of the discussions on the possible update of the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (ETS No. 141): this question could be dealt with by the CDPC (the CDPC should take a decision on this matter in 2002); if further action is required, time should be allowed until the end of 2004 to deal with it.
22. (c) Call on States which have not yet done so to sign, ratify and implement the 1999 UN Convention on the Suppression of terrorist financing: this question could be dealt with by the Committee of Ministers itself (this measure could be implemented without delay by the Committee of Ministers).
(vi) IDs matters in relation to terrorism
23. The European Committee on legal co-operation (CDCJ) has proposed to the Committee of Ministers, at its last meeting from 27 to 31 May 2002, the setting up of a Group of Specialists (CJ-S-ID) to deal with this issue. The Committee of Ministers is expected to take a decision on the matter in September 2002. If a decision is taken to set up such a Group of Specialists, the report is expected to be finalised by the end of June 2003.
(d) Make proposals on the follow up of the implementation of the proposals
24. At their 110th Session, the Ministers “reaffirmed their support for the Organisation's efforts to combat terrorism, in particular through examining the possibility of setting up a specific follow-up mechanism to the Council of Europe's action in this field”.
25. The GMT agreed to propose to the Committee of Ministers, [without prejudice to the provisions of the draft Article 9 of the draft Amending Protocol to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism], to renew and update its terms of reference for one year (until the end of 2003) with a view to:
Appendix
Strasbourg, le 28 mai 2002
Monsieur le Président,
Les Délégués des Ministres ont procédé, le 22 mai 2002, lors de leur 796e réunion, à l’examen du rapport abrégé de la 3e réunion du Groupe multidisciplinaire sur l’action internationale contre le terrorisme (GMT). A cette occasion, un certain nombre de questions concernant l’action future du GMT ont été soulevées, que je tiens à vous soumettre par la présente.
A cet égard, le Comité des Ministres vous invite à :
1. indiquer par ordre de priorités les propositions d’actions futures du GMT ;
2. expliquer comment le GMT entend développer ses propositions ;
3. faire des propositions indiquant qui doit appliquer et développer les actions proposées ;
4. établir un calendrier pour l’exécution des actions proposées ;
5. faire des suggestions sur le suivi de l’application des propositions du GMT.
Je vous saurais gré de me faire parvenir aussitôt que possible les informations demandées que je m’empresserai de communiquer au Comité des Ministres.
Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Président, l’expression de ma considération distinguée.
Gérard Philipps
Président des Délégués des Ministres
Monsieur Philippe De Koster
Président du Groupe multidisciplinaire
sur l’action internationale contre le terrorisme
Ministère de la Justice
115 bld de Waterloo
B -1000 BRUXELLES
[1] The list of participants can be obtained from the Directorate General of Legal Affairs (DGI).
[2] One delegation made a scrutiny reservation concerning the deletion of paragraph 2 of Article 1 as proposed in document GMT-Rev (2002) Misc. 4.
[3] A reference to the need to ensure an effective and adequate sanction will be included in the Explanatory memorandum.
[4] Compromise proposal made by the Polish delegation and agreed upon by the GMT-Rev as a working basis ; the meaning of these terms will be explained in the explanatory memorandum. However, one delegation made a scrutiny reservation.
[5] Possible amendments subject to the outcome of the discussion on Article 6.
[6] After examining the opinions given by the DH-S-TER and the CDDH as well as the CDPC about the suitability of including in this Article a provision similar to that in Article 5 paragraph 2, the GMT-Rev decided to leave this Article unchanged.
[7] Technical adjustment. This Article as well as all Articles from hereon should be renumbered.
[8] Secretariat’s proposals following the request by the GMT at its 2nd meeting and the discussion of the GMT-Rev at its 2nd meeting. The GMT-Rev also decided to refer to the GMT the issue of the possible setting up of a specific follow-up/monitoring mechanism over all activities of the Council of Europe relating to the fight against terrorism.
[9] Possible provision relating to the amendment procedure, see document GMT-Rev (2002) 1.
[10] N.B. two-thirds majority of the representatives casting a vote and of a majority of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee.
[11] Technical adjustement.
[12] See Spanish revised proposal –document GMT-Rev (2002) 8 rev.
[13] Technical adjustment.
[14] Technical adjustments will be necessary in the light of the outcome of discussion on Articles 13 and 15.
[15] Subject to final agreement.
[16] See revised Article 9.
[17] Idem.
[18] Subject to final agreement.
[19] Ibidem.
[20] Ibidem.
[21] This list follows the order of the paragraphs of the Progress Report (CM(2002)57 of 16 April 2002).