A profound and growing challenge to human rights globally stems from the proliferation of exceptional laws, policies and practices adopted in the name of security and “counter-terrorism,” and their creeping reach. Across its litigation, projects and publications, HRiP advances a holistic, human-centric and rule of law approach to security and calls for us to learn lessons from the stark failure of the ‘war on terror’.
Examples of current case work include multiple cases challenging global practices of torture and rendition. The systematic abuse of ‘counter-terrorism’ to attack human rights defenders, academics, civil servants and others, and the undermine democracy and rule of law, as epitomised by recent human rights cases against Turkey and Kazakhstan. Together this litigation illustrates many of the egregious violations committed in the name of ‘counter-terrorism’ in the past twenty years, the impediments to truth, accountability, reparation and collective learning, and the insidious implications of the spreading reach of the ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ label in the world today.
EL HIBLU 3
One example of the problematic spreading reach of terrorism into the migration sphere, at odds with the foreseeable application of ‘terrorism’, in light of international law, is the remarkable “el Hiblu 3” case. Helen Duffy gave expert written and oral evidence in this case during 2025. The case concerns three young migrants, rescued at sea, who refused to be returned to Libya where they claim they faced torture and abuse, and upon arrival in Malta were arrested and prosecuted for “terrorism.” The charges could result in life imprisonment. As background, see my Op Ed in Malta on the case is HERE.
During 2025 Helen Duffy provided written and oral expert evidence in UK courts, in relation to the extradition of one of the accused from the UK to stand trial on these charges in Malta. The written evidence, which addressed the unforeseeable nature of the terrorism charges, in light of international law, and related human rights concerns, is here.
A brief report of the trial is HERE. This case may represent a new frontier in the unforeseeable expansion of counter-terrorism laws, worsening into the problematic migration space.
Helen Duffy has been involved in counter-terrorism related litigation for many years. Older cases from long before the issue became an international obsession in the ‘post-9/11’ space, include
in a series of cases against Sri Lanka before the UN Human Rights Committee (eg. Singharasa and Sarma v Sri Lanka on torture, denial of fair trial rights, burden-shifting and reliance on evidence obtained through torture and implementation in domestic courts)
in INTERIGHTS and EIPR (on behalf of Sabah and Others) v Egypt before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights concerning three men convicted by the notorious Egyptian 'state security courts' following a sham trial in the aftermath of terrorist attacks on the Egyptian tourist resorts of Taba and Sharm el Sheikh in October 2004. The case lead to an important decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights finding that the state security courts – which remain in force in Egypt – violate the basic right to trial before an independent and impartial tribunal. It set down strong legal standards on the positive obligations of African states to protect detainees from torture, including access to lawyers, medical personnel and to court upon detention. The interim government announced it would repeal their death sentences in 2012, though full implementation of the decision, which would require release or at a minimum retrial by a civilian court, has been typically faltering. Ironically, the EIPR has itself been the victim of abusive counter-terrorism law to silence human rights defence - a troubling characteristic seen elsewhere across the globe.
Maskhadovy v Russia concerned the elected president of the breakaway Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, killed in 2005 by Russia's internal security services, whose family was denied notification of death or access to his body for burial due to the fact that he was killed in a “counter-terrorist” operation. The case brought to the European Court of Human Rights with Interights colleagues on behalf of his family, exposed how the Russian 'burial law' was designed to punish the family, by denying them the right to grieve and to bury their dead in accordance with their religious traditions. The Court found the Maskhadovy family's rights had been violated though regrettably, it failed – without explanation – to award them compensation. Recent cases at the ECHR indicate that this violative and discriminatory practice has not been addressed.