Motion for a resolution | Doc. 14044 | 26 April 2016
Restricting rights to protect national security – how far can States go?
Restrictions on certain fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of expression or freedom of assembly, are envisaged by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Under certain conditions, such restrictions can be legitimate.
To fight against terrorism, several Council of Europe member States resort to exceptional measures. By enacting the state of emergency, or amending existing legislation - in the interest of national security and public safety - they narrow the scope of a number of fundamental freedoms. These restrictions can be problematic and have been considered in reports by the Parliamentary Assembly (on Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member States, on Human rights and the fight against terrorism, etc.).The Assembly has repeatedly stated that terrorism can and must be combated effectively by means that fully respect human rights and the rule of law.
Now attempts to limit fundamental freedoms are made under the pretext of the "hybrid war" - a concept that is not legally defined. In this context, some member States are in the process of criminalising not only actions but also the expression of certain opinions as crimes against the State.
Defending the constitutional order and national security are clearly legitimate aims, but they must be pursued with means that remain within the limits set by the ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. The Assembly shall examine these issues in light of the Council of Europe’s acquis to analyse if these restrictions can be justified and if yes, under what conditions; including by making use of the expertise of the Venice Commission.