Switzerland - Refereeing the war on terror

(MENAFN- Swissinfo) Deutsch (de) Aufseher der Terror-Bekämpfung (original)

It was in fact his final case that bothered Kipfer, 61, the most. An influential Political figure from an Arab state was accused of supporting the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda. He was placed on a sanctions list, his bank accounts were frozen, he could no longer travel, and he himself was branded a terrorist.

Shortly afterwards, the man approached Kipfer, the ombudspersonExternal link for the UN sanctions committee against Islamic State and al-Qaeda, requesting to have his case reviewed, with a view to being taken off the list. The ombudsperson is just about the only recourse accused people have when they find themselves in such a situation.

“It was clear to me from the outset that something wasn't right,” Kipfer says. The information at his disposal was all from secret service sources – its origin could not be verified, and its quality was questionable. Kipfer started an investigation. He travelled to the region and met the man in question. He spoke to high-ranking officials in political and military spheres, consulted experts at UN headquarters in New York and assessed publicly available information.“The result was clear: there was nothing there.”

Kipfer had served as president of Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court in Bellinzona before he started his new jobExternal link in New York in 2018. For the career judge with a doctorate in philosophy this was a step into the unknown. The sanctions committee is not a court of law and the ombudsperson is not a judge. It's more a supervisory body that investigates whether sanctions listing is justified in particular cases.

No legal decision is made as to whether the original charge of terrorist involvement is justified or not – so no compensation can be claimed. The only point at issue is whether the person in question is a terrorist risk and whether there is still reason, at the time of the investigation, to have them on the list.

The case of the Arab politician mentioned at the outset was exceptional, Kipfer emphasises. In most cases Kipfer dealt with people who did either support or belong to a terrorist organisation. It is important to note, he says, that a sanctions listing is not a punishment for a crime but rather a preventative measure.

“Preventative measures must by definition be time-limited and are to be revoked when they are no longer required. They are not like a sentence,” he explains.

Unfortunately not all members of the sanctions committee see it that way, he says.“Some of them would argue that anyone put on this list for being a terrorist has to stay on it, because they could be a risk in the future and indeed for the rest of their life.”

Kipfer finds this unacceptable.“That way, the accusation of terrorism can be used to justify any state action,” he says.

The global war on terrorism in the past two decades has affected the uneasy balance between state security demands and individual rights. The complexity of the field can be seen in the development of the sanctions list.

Its origin can be traced back to the advent of Islamist terrorism on the global stage in the 1990s. It was triggered by the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, which brought Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to the particular attention of Western intelligence agencies. With Resolution 1267External link issued in 1999, the Afghan Taliban leadership was sanctioned for providing safe haven to bin Laden and other terrorists.

More

MENAFN25012022000210011054ID1103594215