ASP20 Side Event: Climate Crime at the International Criminal Court

20TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

6 December 2021

Name of the Event: Climate Crime at the International Criminal Court (Hosted by: Republic of Vanuatu) 

Report by: Ana Luz Manzano, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

Highlights: 

  • 2020 was the most dangerous year on record for environmental activists, with 277 lethal attacks. 

  • In October 2021, as part of the campaign for the inclusion of the crime of ecocide in the Rome Statute, ThePlanetVs submitted a case to the ICC concerning the mass deforestation of the Amazonian forest.

  • Panelists called for action to present requests under Article 16 of the Rome Statute for climate crimes.

Speakers: 

  • Lina Torres, Director of Projects and Strategy with Movilizatorio 

  • Seema Joshi, Director of Campaigns with Global Witness 

  • Alison Cole, Indigenous Law, Human Rights & Environment Consultant with Students for Climate Solutions 

  • Maud Sarlieve, Legal Consultant with ThePlanetVs

Summary of the Event:

The first of two ASP side events on Climate Crime at the ICC hosted by Vanuatu was moderated by Alison Cole, an international crimes advocate with Students for Climate Solutions. She, along with the three other panelists, highlighted some of the ongoing global efforts to fight climate change through strategic litigation at international courts.

The first speaker, Lina Torres, shared details on the Guardians of the Forest Campaign by Movilizatorio. Movilizatorio, a citizen engagement and social innovation hub with offices in Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina, works with collective leadership as an engine for social change with the use of technology tools. Their aim is to promote the agendas of underrepresented stakeholders within the democracies in the Latin American region. With an alliance of indigenous and local communities, ignited after the 2016 Paris Accords, the Guardians of the Forest Campaign strives for the mobilization of public opinion to understand the critical role of indigenous and local communities in the prevention and the fight against climate change.

Torres presented a series of challenges, as identified by the hub, that indigenous leaders and local communities from around the world share in their fight against climate change. First, the killing and persecution of environmental defenders. Second, the demand for the right of indigenous and local communities to be informed with regards to projects with an environmental impact. Third, the fight for land rights recognition. Fourth, the request for traditional knowledge to be part of climate change policies. Lastly, the right to seek direct access to climate funding. 

The campaign focuses mainly on the prosecution of killings of environmental activists. In fact, there has been an increase in climate advocates deaths: from 2017-2020, 327 environmental leaders were murdered worldwide, with 69% of them being indigenous or local leaders. However, according to Torres, the convergence of illegal and state actors in the attacking of environmental leaders makes accountability especially difficult. Ultimately, indigenous and local communities “serve as human shields of their territories”. Torres concluded her intervention by reflecting on attacks of several activists, including Bertha Cáceres, who was murdered in Honduras, and Ari Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau, who was murdered in Brazil. 

Next, Seema Joshi presented the case of the liability of private actors in environmental impacts. As the director of campaigns at Global Witness, she campaigns for the investigation and exposure of abuses of power that are driving the climate breakdown. She considered the accountability gap present in the environmental crisis and explained that, according to evidence, the climate crisis intensifies violence against those protecting our planet. In 2020, 227 lethal attacks were reported against environmental activists, making it the most dangerous year to record, all of them taking place in the Global South. 

A disproportionate number of attacks are against indigenous people. Although these communities make up only 5% of the world’s population, a third of the attacks against environmental activists are against indigenous people. Global Witness calls for due diligence regulations for companies, especially for large brands of international mining. Joshi emphasised that the absence of precedents in climate crimes should not deter the use of litigation to fight for international environmental justice.

The next panelist, Maud Sarlieve, spoke about the case that ThePlanetVs presented to the ICC in October 2021 on the mass deforestation of the Amazonian forest conducted by Brazil’s president. Sarlieve recognized that this case may not be admissible, but noted it may bring to light the current limitations of the Rome Statute in targeting climate crimes. She proposed that the Rome Statute, as an anthropocentric treaty, is concerned with the impact that attacks have on civilian populations. Therefore, the mass deforestation of the largest tropical forest of the world should be analyzed in function of the impact it could have on the local and global population.

Moderator Alison Cole concluded by referring to the Ecocide Campaign. With the use of a creative interpretation of the Rome Statute and Article 15 submissions, an amendment to the Rome Statute could be an important move towards environmental justice.

ASP20 Side Event: Survivors’ Pathways to Accountability: Legal Avenues for South Sudanese Survivors of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence

20TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

6 December 2021

Name of the Event: Survivors’ Pathways to Accountability: Legal Avenues for South Sudanese Survivors of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (Hosted by: Legal Action Worldwide (LAW), The Netherlands)

Report by: Guillermo Ferrer Hernáez, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL, and Marielotte van Ballegooijen, Research Associate PILPG-NL

Highlights: 

  • The panelists called on the South Sudanese Government to further the establishment of the Hybrid Court of South Sudan (HCSS) which has been a contentious issue in South Sudan.

  • The panelists compared the road to accountability and justice in South Sudan with the transitional justice process in Uganda.

  • The panelists emphasized the need for the victims to participate in trials, allowing their voices to be heard and their testimonies to be shared in order to achieve justice.

Speakers:

  • Susan Okalany: Judge, High Court of Uganda & ICC Prosecutor Candidate

  • Jackline Nasiwa: Executive Director, Centre for inclusive Governance, Peace and Justice and Senior Peace Fellow, PILPG

  • Kenneth Scott: Prosecutor & International Human Rights Lawyer

  • Antonia Mulvey: Executive Director, LAW

  • Bahia Tahzib-Lie: Human Rights Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands

  • Jehanne Henry: Moderator of the event

Summary of the Event:

The first speaker, Bahia Tahzib-Lie, Human Rights Ambassador at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands, opened the event by highlighting that victims of conflict-related sexual violence do not feel that perpetrators are held accountable for their crimes. This is a pattern that most human rights organizations find when interviewing victims. The victims feel that the perpetrators will never be prosecuted under state's authorities considering the Government’s unwillingness to prosecute. Tahzib-Lie highlighted that victims in South Sudan are demanding their right to justice and that this process needs to start with providing adequate justice reparations in order to achieve accountability. Tahzib-Lie emphasized that certain steps are being made in the right direction, as the Netherlands, in particular, supports this transitional justice process in South Sudan. However, there are still limitations as South Sudan unwillingness, and potentially inability, to start investigations provide for an obstacle to the process.

The second speaker Jackline Nasiwa, PILPG Senior Peace Fellow and Executive Director at Centre for inclusive Governance, Peace and Justice, contextualized the reality of victims of conflict-related sexual violence by pointing out the presence of violence in major areas in South Sudan. She highlighted three reasons why victims may not be willing to speak out. The first is that many of the survivors have other major concerns related to their basic necessities, such as their livelihood, health, or even being able to eat. Nasiwa provided examples of witnesses who had physical injuries and/or suffered mental trauma which should be addressed first before having them participate in trials.

The second reason, Nasiwa discussed, is that some of the victims might feel reluctant to talk because there is still intercommunal violence. Considering that there is not enough protection for the victims to speak to authorities or courts, victims may not feel comfortable sharing their testimonies. This safety issue is also caused by the committees that recollect victim testimonies who are made up of politicians or leaders that were part of the conflict. These figures might claim that victims advocate for a political reason.

The third reason Nasiwa mentioned is that survivors are not mentally prepared to do so. In order to help victims speak about their experiences, trauma healing training is necessary for those who are conducting investigations in South Sudan.

The third speaker, Susan Okalany, Judge at the High Court of Uganda and ICC Prosecutor candidate, drew some comparisons with the South Sudanese conflict and the Ugandan conflict. She claimed that the lack of comprehensive legal framework in domestic courts hinders the justice process. Several amnesty laws passed by the Ugandan Government make it impossible to prosecute major perpetrators of sexual violence, leaving them impune. In addition, Geneva Conventions could not be applied to the conflict because the conflict cannot be considered an international armed conflict. Despite this, Judge Okalany considered that perpetrators could still be charged with national and international core crimes under customary international law, following judicial cases from Commonwealth tribunals.

Another issue brought by Judge Okalany, and agreed upon by the other panellists, was the victim's participation in trials. Okalany argued that the victims should be able to participate throughout the trial as opposed to when the trial is done and reparations are made. This ensures that the victims participate in their own justice process. In order to ensure their participation from the beginning till the end of the trial, she applied mutatis mutandi the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court.

The fourth speaker Antonia Mulvey, Executive director of LAW, reiterated that the victim's participation in justice processes is crucial for the achievement of peace. Documenting the names of victims and the locations where the crimes have been committed needs to take place to ensure there is evidence for future trials. With this, however, she argues that the victims must be offered enough protection if the victims cannot stay anonymous, as this could cause serious problems for their safety. Through Mulvey’s role as an interviewer of victims during the Rohingya crisis, she concluded that most of the victims wanted the ICC to start an investigation. Six months after Mulvey conducted these interviews, ex-ICC Prosecutor Bensouda decided to open an investigation in the Bangladesh border with Myanmar.

The fifth speaker Kenneth Scott, prosecutor and international human rights lawyer, emphasized the necessity to establish a hybrid court in South Sudan. Scott condemned the UNSC unwillingness to refer the case to the ICC as well as South Sudan's refusal to accept the ICC jurisdiction. Scott concluded the discussion by providing that the ICC could claim jurisdiction based on the Bangladesh/Myanmar case considering that most of the South Sudanese survivors were displaced to Uganda, a neighboring state that has ratified the Rome Statute.

November 2021

Monthly News Updates: International Criminal Court - November 2021

By: Claire Kaula, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL 

In November, the International Criminal Court addressed the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council, the Appeals Chamber issued several decisions, and the Trust Fund for Victims welcomed the first voluntary contribution from Mali.

ICC

During annual retreat ICC judges agree on amendments to the Chambers Practice Manual and Regulations of the Court

On November 19 and 20, the ICC judges held their annual judicial retreat online.  First, the retreat focused on proposals to court procedures based on the Independent Expert Review Report from 2020.  The adopted amendments include a model for court proceedings that will make trials more efficient, and the “A-B-C Approach” for transmitting victims’ applications to participate in proceedings.  Then, the judges discussed institutional issues the ICC is facing.  They agreed to continue discussing measures to address bullying and harassment in the workplace, and formed a working group to further discuss gender equality at the Court.  [November 22, 2021]

ICC President presents Annual Report to the General Assembly

On November 10, the ICC President Judge Piotr Hofmański presented the ICC’s Annual Report to the UN General Assembly.  He praised the Court’s ability to continue operations and make progress on proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Throughout the speech, he emphasized the importance of the ICC to uphold the rule of law and to prevent mass violence.  He outlined areas the Court is striving to strengthen, such as providing effective and fair justice, and enhancing the staff gender balance.  He urged states that are not parties to the Rome Statute and the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities to join, and for all states to make donations to the Trust Fund for Victims.  [November 10, 2021]

AFRICA

Mali | Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi’s sentence reviewed and reduced by ICC Appeals Chamber 

In 2016, the ICC Trial Chamber VIII convicted Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi as a co-perpetrator for intentionally directing attacks against ten religious and historical monuments in Mali.  The Trial Chamber sentenced Al Mahdi to nine years in prison.  The ICC Appeals Chamber reduced the sentence by two years.  In making this decision, the Appeals Chamber was mindful of the views expressed by Mali and the victims, but also considered Al Mahdi’s cooperation with the Court.  The Appeals Chamber set Al Mahdi’s new release date as September 18, 2022.  [November 25, 2021] 

Libya | ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan addresses the United Nations Security Council on the Situation in Libya

In his first briefing to the United Nations Security Council as ICC Prosecutor, Karim A.A. Khan addressed the Situation in Libya between May 18 and November 17, 2021.  During this time, the Office of the Prosecutor (the Office) received several reports on serious crimes occurring in Libyan detention facilities, and crimes against migrants.  The Office also received new reports of allegations of serious crimes occurring in Tarhunah, and new complaints of displaced persons from Benghazi.  The ICC Prosecutor emphasized Libya’s responsibility to protect their population and the importance of cooperation between Libya and the Office.  [November 23, 2021]

Sudan | ICC Appeals Chamber rejects Defense’s jurisdictional challenges in The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman

In the Abd-Al-Rahman case, the ICC Appeals Chamber unanimously rejected the Defense’s appeal claiming the Court does not have jurisdiction.  Firstly, the Chamber found no error in how the Pre-Trial Chamber defined “situation” in “terms of temporal, territorial and in some cases personal parameters.”  Secondly, the Chamber found that the lack of funding by the UN did not invalidate the referral of the case by the UN Security Council.  Thirdly, the Chamber found that although Sudan is not party to the Rome Statute, the referral resulted from serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law criminalized under international law, and part of customary international law.  As a result, the Chamber found that the ICC has jurisdiction over the case.  The trial is set to start April 5, 2022. [November 1, 2021]

THE AMERICAS

Venezuela | ICC Prosecutor opens investigation into the Situation in Venezuela and signs Memorandum of Understanding with Venezuela 

After concluding a preliminary examination, ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan opened a formal investigation into the Situation in Venezuela.  The Venezuelan Government is cooperating even though they do not believe the conditions are met for an investigation.  The ICC Prosecutor and President of Venezuela signed a Memorandum of Understanding where both parties agreed to establish mechanisms to help the investigation, and for Venezuela to have genuine national proceedings.  [November 3, 2021]

ASIA

The Philippines | The Philippines requests the Prosecution to defer investigation

Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan notified ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I that the Philippines requested deferral of the Prosecution’s investigation.  The investigation concerns crimes against humanity during the “War on Drugs” campaign between July 1, 2016 and March 16, 2019 in the Philippines, and between November 1, 2011 and June 30, 2016 in the Davao area.  In response, the Prosecution has requested additional information from the Philippines and has temporarily suspended the investigation to assess the request.  But as is allowed under the Statute, the Prosecution will continue its analysis of the information it already has.  [November 18, 2021]

EUROPE

Malta | Malta makes its first contribution to the Trust Fund for Victims   

This year, Malta made its first voluntary contribution of 20,000 euros to the Trust Fund for Victims. The Trust Fund for Victims expressed its gratitude towards Malta for its commitment towards helping provide justice for victim-survivors of crimes under the ICC jurisdiction, even with the challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. [November 22, 2021]

November 2021

Monthly News Updates: Domestic Prosecution of International Crimes - November 2021

By: Pauline Pfaff, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL 

Several trials for international crimes before domestic courts have commenced or concluded this month.  The following post outlines new developments in relation to the prosecution of international crimes in national jurisdictions worldwide.

EUROPE

France | Trial against former hotel driver for complicity in Rwandan genocide commences

The trial of Claude Muhayiama for complicity in the 1994 Rwandan genocide has started before a court in Paris.  Muhayiama, a former hotel driver, allegedly drove perpetrators of the genocide to massacre sites.  This is the third trial in France in connection to the genocide in Rwanda, but the first of a person without close ties to the government or military. [November 22, 2021] 

Spain | Spanish coalition government files amendment to draft Democratic Memory Law to allow for prosecution of crimes committed during Franco rule

The Socialist Party (POSE) and Unidas Podemos, the two parties forming the Spanish coalition government, filed an amendment to the draft Democratic Memory Law, which, if adopted, would allow for the prosecution of international crimes committed during the Franco era.  The amendment would entail a reinterpretation of the 1977 Amnesty Law, which allowed for the release of political prisoners and that no offences committed by members of the dictatorial government prior to 1977 could be prosecuted.  [November 17, 2021] 

Bosnia-Herzegovina | Bosnian state court convicts two former Bosnian-Serb soldiers of war crime committed in 1992 

The Bosnian state court found Bratislav Bilbija and Djuro Adamovic, two former Bosnian-Serb soldiers, guilty of the war crime of inhumane treatment of civilians.  It sentenced the defendants to two and three years’ imprisonment respectively.  In the same ruling, the court acquitted both Bilbija and Adamovic for the counts of murder, torture, and forced disappearances, and fully acquitted a third defendant, Ranko Babic.  The acts took place in August 1992 in the village of Bukvik, close to Prijedor.  The verdict is open to appeal.  [November 16, 2021] 

Kosovo | Court of Appeals upholds judgement and sentencing against former Serb fighter for war crimes committed in 1999 

The Court of Appeals in Pristina upheld the 12-year imprisonment sentence against former Serb fighter Zoran Djokic for war crimes against civilians.  It also rejected the appeals filed by both the defense and the prosecution. The underlying acts were committed against ethnic Albanian civilians in the town of Peja/Pec in 1999 during the Kosovo War. [November 15, 2021] 

Netherlands | Dutch court allows extradition of unnamed individual to Rwanda to stand trial for genocide and crimes against humanity

The District Court of The Hague ruled in favor of the extradition to Rwanda of an unnamed person for the purpose of criminal prosecution.  The Rwandan authorities brought forward allegations of complicity in genocide and crimes against humanity to substantiate their extradition request.  The implicated individual opposed the extradition based on fair trial concerns, which were discarded by the Court.  [November 15, 2021] 

Sweden | Stockholm District court charges Lundin Energy executives with complicity in war crimes in Sudan 1999-2003

The Swedish public prosecutors formally indicted two representatives of Lundin Energy, a Swedish oil company, for aiding and abetting grave war crimes committed in Sudan between 1999 and 2003.  [November 11, 2021] 

Sweden/Albania | War crimes trial against former Iranian official commences and relocates to Albania to hear witness testimony

The trial against former Iranian official Hamid Nouri for war crimes has officially started.  It is alleged that Nouri handed out death sentences during a purge of political dissidents in 1988.  The proceedings will temporarily relocate from Sweden to Albania for a period of two weeks to hear the testimony of seven witnesses who live there in exile.  The testimony pertains to the accused’s role in the 1988 massacre of opposition members in Iran. [November 10, 2021] 

Germany | Higher Regional Court Frankfurt confirms charges for war crimes and crimes against humanity against Syrian citizen

The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt confirmed charges against Alaa M., who allegedly committed torture and murder in a military hospital and at a detention facility of the Military Intelligence Service in Homs, Syria, between 2011 and 2012.  The first court hearing is scheduled for January 2022.  [November 10, 2021] 

Germany | Two human rights organizations file lawsuit against Belarusian officials for crimes against humanity before German court 

The World Organization Against Torture (OMCT) and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) filed a complaint for crimes against humanity against six members of the Belarusian security forces.  The accused allegedly committed mass detentions, disappearances, sexual violence, torture, and political persecution.  [November 1, 2021] 


AFRICA 

Central African Republic | Special Criminal Court 1 charges minister with war crimes and crimes against humanity

The Special Criminal Court 1 arrested Hassan Bouba, the minister of livestock and animal health, and brought charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against him.  Bouba is a former leader of the rebel group Union for Peace in the Central African Republic, which was responsible for various atrocity crimes between the years of 2014 and 2017.  [November 24, 2021] 

South Africa | Charges of apartheid as crimes against humanity for the first time before South African court

The Director of Public Prosecutions in Johannesburg for the first time included charges for apartheid as crimes against humanity in the revised indictment against the accused in the so-called COSAS Four case.  The case pertains to the killing and serious injury of four members of the Congress of South African Students (COSAS) by policemen in 1987. [November 23, 2021] 

Democratic Republic of the Congo | First conviction for war crimes against a former militia leader in the Kasai province

A Congolese military tribunal convicted a former militia leader for war crimes, including summary executions and looting, committed during the 2017 conflict between the Congolese army and the Kamuina Nsapu militias.  This is the first conviction of this type in the Kasai province.  The trial only lasted five days.  The military tribunal sentenced T. Mandefu, a village chief and militia leader,to death. [November 8, 2021] 


ASIA

Bangladesh | International Crimes Tribunal 1 sentences former Bangladesh Nationalist Party lawmaker to death for crimes against humanity

The International Crimes Tribunal 1 sentenced former Bangladesh Nationalist Party lawmaker Abdul Momin Talukder Khoka to death for crimes against humanity that he committed during the 1971 Liberation War.[November 24, 2021]

Big Brother Watch v. the United Kingdom: A Trend Towards Accepting Surveillance Regimes in Europe?

By: Daria Stanculescu, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

On May 25, 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its judgment in the joined cases Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom.  In its decision, the Court ruled on the compatibility of mass surveillance systems with Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).  The Court’s judgment comes at a time where states parties to the ECHR are increasingly making use of mass surveillance regimes in the name of national security.  This blog post will examine the Court’s decision in Big Brother Watch in the context of the apparent shift in Europe towards the general acceptance of surveillance regimes. 

Background of the Case

Big Brother Watch is the first ECtHR judgment that focuses on mass surveillance since Edward Snowden revealed the widespread use of surveillance and intelligence programs by national intelligence services in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) in 2013.  A combination of NGOs, academics, and journalists lodged the applications in Big Brother Watch between 2013 and 2015.  

The applicants sought to challenge three surveillance regimes of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in the UK: the bulk interception of communications, intelligence sharing with foreign governments, and obtaining of communications data from service providers.  The applicants argued that the three systems breached the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR.  Several applicants also argued that the UK violated the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.  The UK government conversely argued that these regimes were vital for identifying national security threats.  In its decision, the Court found that the bulk interception regimes breached Articles 8 and 10 ECHR.  It similarly found that the regime allowing GCHQ to obtain communications data from service providers breached Articles 8 and 10 ECHR as it was not in accordance with the law.  However, the Court held that receiving intelligence from foreign governments did not violate Article 8 ECHR.  

An interesting aspect of the judgment is that the Court confirmed that bulk interception regimes do not in and of themselves violate Article 8 of the ECHR.  The ECtHR accepted that these systems are “of vital importance” to states parties to the Convention in identifying threats to national security.  Moreover, the Court held that states have a wide margin of appreciation “in choosing how to best achieve the legitimate aim of protecting national security.”  This means that, in principle, the Court considers that these regimes comply with the ECHR, as long as they respect several safeguards set out in the judgment.  For example, the Court held that bulk surveillance mechanisms must be subject to “end-to-end safeguards.”  This means that states should assess the necessity and proportionality of the measures being taken and the bulk interception should be subject to independent authorization.  Furthermore, the operation should be subject to supervision and independent review.  The ECtHR held that the UK’s bulk interception regime did not meet these requirements regarding end-to-end safeguards.

Analysis

The ECtHR’s approach in Big Brother Watch may be seen as a step towards the “normalization of mass surveillance.”  While the ECtHR noted that these systems must meet various safeguards to comply with the Convention, the Court did not question the operation of these systems as a whole. 

This approach of applying less strict standards of scrutiny in data protection cases can also be seen in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).  Initially, this Court took a pro-privacy stance.  In Digital Rights Ireland, the CJEU declared the EU Data Retention Directive void, as it provided for indiscriminate data retention.  Subsequently, in Tele2 Sverige, the CJEU further held that EU member states could not establish indiscriminate data retention regimes.  However, more recently, in La Quadrature du Net, the CJEU has taken a different approach.  In this case, the Court held that, in certain circumstances, EU member states may adopt legislation which provides for indiscriminate data retention.  

The recent judgments of the ECtHR and CJEU in Big Brother Watch and La Quadrature du Net, respectively, can thus be considered more favorable to national surveillance regimes.

However, this approach has not been universally endorsed.  Other international institutions have expressed reservations to this approach.  Importantly, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in a 2014 Report, highlighted that “governmental mass surveillance [is] emerging as a dangerous habit rather than an exceptional measure.”  Furthermore, the Report noted that “the very existence of a mass surveillance program thus creates an interference with the right to privacy.”  More recently, in 2019, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression has called for tighter regulation on the use of surveillance technology until states develop frameworks that comply with human rights.  These statements show that the European approach has thus far not been adopted at international level. 

Conclusion

In the context of ECHR states parties’ increasing reliance on mass surveillance systems, the importance of the ECtHR’s judgment in Big Brother Watch can hardly be exaggerated. The Court’s decision is aligned with the approach of the CJEU, which seems to point towards a dialogue between the two courts, both of which have begun to allow surveillance regimes that meet certain safeguards. It remains to be seen whether, in future judgments, the ECtHR and the CJEU will continue this approach or whether these courts will revert to a privacy-oriented approach.