Strasbourg, 25/03/2015 (Agence Europe) -With measures such as France's new intelligence Bill, member states are failing to recognise the implications of mass surveillance on fundamental rights, Nils Muiznieks, Council of Europe human rights commissioner, says in this interview with EUROPE (in conversation with Véronique Leblanc).
Agence Europe - You are concerned that France has brought forward a new intelligence Bill and have published a press release highlighting potential dangers. What are the risks?
Nils Muizniks - What is most problematic is the lack of legal control on surveillance since decisions only belong to the executive … Another source of concern is the extension of surveillance to persons on whom there are no firm suspicions. When linked to the issue of the length of time the data gathered can be retained, this second point is very worrying.
Are other countries doing similar things?
Of course - Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom, for example. This shows that governments have not learned the lessons of the Snowden affair. They have not understood the scale of the risks of mass surveillance with no monitoring and no guarantee of any sort. It's fundamental rights, such as preserving privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of association, that are being put in danger.
You say that measures such as these could “help the terrorists' cause”. In what way?
Over the last 15 years, in the name of fighting terrorism, we have taken our eye off the ball with regard to safeguarding human rights and this has served the ideology of those we wanted to fight. Their conclusion-slogan was simple: “The West forever talks about human rights and is forever violating them”.
Furthermore, under all this surveillance lurk risks of profiling and ethnic stigmatisation. We know that that can lead to a loss of confidence in the rule of law when, on the contrary, confidence in the security forces has to be strengthened to encourage everyone to cooperate in efforts to counter terrorism.
In concrete terms, what action is open to you with the governments of the 47 Council of Europe member states?
I have made my thoughts known on the Bills in France and Denmark, highlighting human rights standards. I also travel to the countries concerned to meet their governments and security agencies as well as all democratic monitoring bodies. I have just been to Norway and Serbia and, in a month's time, I'll be in Germany.
What about Belgium?
I intend to travel to Belgium but the dates of my visit have yet to be determined. What strikes me already is the emphasis put on immigrants, refugees and the threat faced by returning jihadists of being stripped of their nationality. This is a tough measure and it is important to make sure it is justified, proportionate and useful. At any rate, it can only be envisaged if the person concerned has only Belgian nationality.
People have been marked by the terrorist attacks and expect strong measures. Does your message not run the risk of appearing naïve?
It cannot be denied that the pressure on our leaders is huge, particularly in countries that have suffered attack. Citizens expect measures and want to be reassured. I am convinced, however, that we mustn't act hastily. All Bills must be considered from the point of view of human rights. And let's not forget that security specialists acknowledge that a legislative armoury already exists and that the first step ought to be to make better use of it. The Council of Europe can help strengthen cooperation and sharing of best practice in this area. That's important, as, too, is the light shed by my report on “the rule of law on the internet and the digital world in general” and the one on “democratic monitoring of security agencies” that I will publish in June.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is being increasingly challenged by some member states, including on decisions that prevent the extradition of terrorists. Is this a further reason for concern for you?
Certainly, and I look forward to the conference on the ECHR to be held in Brussels on 26 and 27 March to hear what the European capitals are saying on this issue. The Court in Strasbourg is a key element in safeguarding human rights. In bringing it into question, one is attacking the values that the terrorists are seeking to destroy. It's a victory for them.
How, then, would you recommend terrorism should be tackled?
Tackling radicalisation is crucial and prison is not the only answer. Denmark is experimenting with methods that focus on social intervention and education … rejecting a purely security and law enforcement based approach. Everyone is trying to find effective solutions - experience-sharing is essential.
But Denmark, too, has suffered deadly terrorist attacks …
That's true. It's not going to be possible immediately to prevent every attack all the time. That may be possible in a totalitarian state but not in a democratic society (our translation).