Back The Council of Europe: “A Red Cross for Human Rights”

Strasbourg , 

« In the fight against terrorism, human rights are no impediment ». Interview with the Secretary General translated from Der Tagesspiegel 18 June 2017

 

The Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland, speaks about Theresa May’s Brexit plans, measures against fake news and the fate of prisoners in Turkey.

The Council of Europe is regarded as the guardian of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. When looking at developments in member states such as Turkey, Russia or Hungary and the success of right wing populist parties in Europe – is this not a counter-development?

There are worrying signs in some countries. Of course there are considerable problems in Turkey, Russia and Hungary. But we should also see the positive: in Germany, a party which was causing us great concern, is in decline.

Do you mean the AfD?

Yes, the statement by the AfD that Islam does not belong to Germany – and therefore not to Europe – was totally unacceptable. Freedom of religion is a fundamental pillar of the European Convention of Human Rights. In the Netherlands the right wing populist Geert Wilders did not have much success and Ukip in Great Britain experienced a similar decline. However, it is worrying that large, established parties are also questioning the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. There has been for some time now a discussion in Britain about the role of the Convention, initiated by the governing Conservative party.

Prime Minister May has announced she would curb human rights if they stand in the way of fighting terrorism. What do you say?

If Britain wanted to derogate from a specific article of the Convention it would first have to declare a state of emergency. There is no way around that. In addition a country can’t do that permanently, there are time limits. French President Emmanuel Macron has just told the Council of Europe that he wants to lift the state of emergency in France. We welcome that.

But what is the significance when a government leader of a long standing Western democracy wants to restrict Human Rights as a last resort?

If the UK does in fact restrict human rights, other countries will do the same. That would be the beginning of the end of the entire system of human rights protection in Europe. This is why it is so important to underline the limits here. Human Rights are definitely not an impediment in the fight against terrorism. We cannot fight terrorism with undemocratic means. And we already have strong legal instruments for the fight against terrorism in Europe.

The German government wants to legally force social networks to counter “hate crime and other illegal contents” and to take down such posts. They also speak of “illegal fake news” how do you assess the German proposals?

It is clear that hate speech online is dangerous and must be fought. Fake news can also lead to human rights violations, for example when they lead to violent attacks on migrants. On the other hand there is a risk that state measures against fake news enter the field of censorship. For other states who do not respect freedom of expression as conscientiously as Germany this would be the wrong signal. And we already have laws which criminalize incitement to violence, open racism and holocaust denial in the member states of the Council of Europe. When such content appears on social media, law enforcement authorities can already act.

Are the existing laws sufficient?

In general, yes. Under pressure from the German government, the EU and the Council of Europe, the Internet companies have reacted and are now beginning to flag fake news and delete illegal hate speech. But it would be wrong to put all the responsibility on private companies.

Turkey is also a Council of Europe member state, the journalist Deniz Yücel has been in jail for 125 days. He is one of thousands journalists, civil servants and soldiers detained since the attempted coup in 2016. How do you assess the Turkish government’s action?

The developments in Turkey are very worrying. In this situation the legal instruments which exist in Europe are extremely important. Most journalists who are in detention in Turkey have appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, complaining that there has been no assessment of their pre-trial detention. The Strasbourg Court will soon be examining these cases. For those in jail in Turkey, the Court is the last resort. It has helped many people in the past. The well-known journalist Can Dündar was released because the Turkish Constitutional Court based its decision on the obligation under the Convention and the case-law of the Strasbourg Court. We will have to see now whether the judgments of the Strasbourg court will be implemented under the new circumstances. Prior to the attempted coup Strasbourg judgments were being implemented.

When you last visited Turkey did members of the government in Ankara give you assurances that Turkey would implement future judgments of the Court?

They did not say the opposite. And Ankara knows that it would be bad for the country’s reputation if it got thousands of condemnation from the highest Court in Europe.

If Turkey reintroduces the death penalty can it remain in the Council of Europe?

The reintroduction of the death penalty is the red line. There are certain articles in the Convention that countries can never derogate from, not even during a state of emergency. That includes the prohibition of torture and of the death penalty. If a country introduces the death penalty, it cannot be a member of the Council of Europe.

Russia has recently announced it will cut its contribution to the Council of Europe what does that mean for the Organisation?

We never received an official communication. Maybe it was fake news, we will see. And countries can’t simply reduce their contributions. Russia is one of the big contributors and that is set out in its accession treaty to the Council of Europe.

After the annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula Crimea in 2014 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe canceled the voting right of the Russian delegation. Since then the Russian deputies have not come to the plenary sessions. Is Moscow now attempting to put pressure on the Council of Europe with its threats to cut contributions?

I don’t think that would work. Nobody would give in to financial pressure. But I hope that we will find a solution to end this crisis. We need the mutual exchange (with Russia).

Russia supports the separatists in Eastern Ukraine with personnel, weapons and money. What can the Council of Europe do there and on Crimea?

We have a very clear position regarding the events in Ukraine. The annexation ion of Crimea was a violation of international law. People in Crimea continue to live under the protection of the European Convention. They can appeal to the Court in Strasbourg. This is why the Council of Europe should be present on Crimea to look after people’s rights. I do all I can to enable monitoring on Crimea.

Does that mean the Council of Europe can send experts to assess the human rights situation on Crimea?

That is what I am working on. Our observers should be able to work regardless of the status issue.

How do Ukraine and Russia react?

There are practical and legal problems. Understandably, Ukraine wants to avoid that future missions of Council of Europe experts on Crimea could create the impression of a recognition of the annexation. But I am sure we will find solution. At the end of the day we need to think of the people on Crimea. I cannot accept that the Council of Europe becomes a part of a geo-political game. We should be able to do our job everywhere. We are a kind of Red Cross for human rights. There should be no white spots on our map.

The Parliamentary Assembly has been shaken by a corruption scandal. A former Italian Deputy received millions from Azerbaijan; prosecutors see a connection with his activity at the Council of Europe. The Assembly has designated 3 judges to examine what happened. Has this scandal and the initially slow response in addressing it damaged the reputation of the Assembly and of the Council of Europe?

Yes, temporarily, I would say so. But the enquiry will be led by 3 very experienced judges. We need to wait for the results. In addition, the Parliamentary Assembly will revise its own rules (of conduct). We will get back on course.

On the one hand there is the corruption scandal, on the other hand there is the President of the Parliamentary Assembly who by invitation of Russian deputies, traveled to Syria and posed for a photo with Bashar Al Assad. It seems as if authoritarian regimes think they can buy influence in the Council of Europe.

First of all we should not forget that the Council of Europe is much more than the Parliamentary Assembly. We are an organization in which governments cooperate and which include highly recognized institutions: the monitoring bodies, the Venice Commission, and, most important, the European Court of Human Rights. I have yet to see that someone refuses to recognize the authority of this system. The Parliamentary Assembly plays an important role. But in the end decisions are made by the governments. It is very important now to have clarity over what happened in the Parliamentary Assembly and to ensure that nobody can influence it by inappropriate means.

Have Western states and their deputies paid too little attention to the Council of Europe, because they take the rights that it defends for granted?

From a Western prospective that may be the case. In some countries, for example in Turkey, the role of the Convention and especially of the Strasbourg Court is regarded as much more important. For the citizens of these countries the Court is their last hope. If Russia left, or were to be excluded from the Council of Europe, some 130 million people would be deprived of the right to appeal to the highest international Court. If the so-called “old democracies” were to question the Human Rights Convention as the value-base for European integration, this would certainly strengthen the anti-European and centrifugal forces on our continent – both within the EU, and in its neighbourhood.