Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Alice Jill Edwards
In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Alice Jill Edwards, addresses the crime of hostage‑taking from the perspective of the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, with a view to reinvigorating international engagement on the issue; reinforcing international laws prohibiting torture and the taking of hostages; and addressing legal and policy gaps in the prevention of hostage-taking and the protection of hostages. In the report, the Special Rapporteur highlights the severe psychological and physical torture and other ill-treatment suffered by hostages, which have lasting impacts on hostages’ families, communities and countries. She considers that the rising number of incidents of hostage-taking worldwide demand collective international attention, and calls on the international community to condemn all forms of hostage-taking and to fully implement, inter alia, the International Convention on the Taking of Hostages. The report concludes with a set of recommendations to States, non-State actors, and entities and bodies of the United Nations.
Excerpts:
24. In the subsequent decades there were further prominent cases of hostage-taking. In 1979, 53 diplomats and citizens of the United States of America were taken hostage in the United States embassy in Tehran by armed students, whose actions were later endorsed by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The stand-off was finally resolved after 444 days, and after a failed rescue attempt. During the civil war in Lebanon (1975–1990), at least 104 foreign hostages were taken by Hezbollah and other armed groups. Other protracted cases include the kidnappings by the Fuerza Alternative Revolucionaria del Común (FARC) in Colombia from 1982 to 2012, in which extortion was prevalent.[1] In 1996 and 1997, leftist militants held more than 400 hostages at the Japanese Ambassador’s residence in Lima in an incident that lasted 126 days.
29. Foreign nationals have allegedly been arbitrarily detained with the purpose of using them for financial, political or other forms of leverage by China,[1] the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,[2] Iran (Islamic Republic of),[3] Myanmar,[4] the Russian Federation,[5] the United Arab Emirates[6] and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).[7] At least 66 cases of State hostage-taking in the Islamic Republic of Iran have been reported since 2010.[8] Journalists, aid workers, academics, business travellers and human rights defenders are especially vulnerable.[9] Dual nationals are often specifically targeted, and, in some cases, those individuals have been denied consular assistance from their other country of nationality.
[1] See the cases of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor; and submission of Michael Kovrig.
[2] Submissions of REDRESS, Michael Kovrig, the Human Rights Advisory Group and Secure Canada, and the Soufan Centre.
[3] For example, the cases of Olivier Vandecasteele, Ana Diamond, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, Anoosheh Ashoori and Emad Shargi; and submissions of the Soufan Centre, Anoosheh Ashoori and Ana Diamond. See also A/HRC/WGAD/2016/28, A/HRC/WGAD/2021/85 and A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37.
[4] Submissions of DIGNITY and Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Myanmar).
[5] For example, the case of Evan Gershkovich; and submissions of the Memorial Human Rights Defence Centre, the New Dissidents Foundation and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee.
[6] See cases of Ryan Cornelius (national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and Zack Shahin (national of the United States), who were detained in the United Arab Emirates and have remained in prison since 2008, reportedly to advance State commercial and political interests; and submission of International Human Rights Advisors.
[7] Submissions of Edgar Jose Marval Moreno and Jose Pereira.
[8] Carla Ferstman and Marina Sharpe, “Iran’s arbitrary detention of foreign and dual nationals as hostage-taking and crimes against humanity”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 20, No. 2 (May 2022), p. 403.
[9] Submissions of the Soufan Centre and Protect Humanitarians.
[1] Submission of Germán Parra Gallego.
38. The International Court of Justice has provided clarity on the obligations of States in situations where the initial hostage-taking was carried out by non-State perpetrators: “Once organs of the Iranian State had thus given approval to the acts complained of and decided to perpetuate them as a means of pressure on the United States, those acts were transformed into acts of the Iranian State: the militants became agents of that State, which itself became internationally responsible for their acts.”[1] The Court found that the Islamic Republic of Iran was bound to secure the immediate release of the hostages, to restore the Embassy premises and to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States Government.
[1] International Court of Justice, Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment, 24 May 1980, Summary of the Judgment, p. 108 (corresponding to para. 74 of the Judgment).
