HRC58: Discussion on Hostage-taking as Torture

The Interactive Dialogue on the Special Rapporteur of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

The 58th Session of the Human Rights Council

24 February - 4 April 2025

Item 3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development

4 March 2025

By Shrimeti Jungo / GICJ 

Executive Summary 

During the 58th Session of the Human Rights Council, on 4 March 2025, delegates, representatives of countries and non-governmental organisations participated in an interactive dialogue about the report presented by Ms Alice Jill Edwards, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  This year marks the 40th anniversary of the creation of this mandate;however, despite some progress, the eradication of torture remains far. 

The Special Rapporteur introduced the report to the Council, focusing particularly on hostage-taking, and its role in the context of torture. It was reiterated that hostage-taking “almost always involves torture”, highlighting the importance of incorporating hostage-taking to the discourse. In this regard, there was no contemplation, as practically all representatives welcomed the report and agreed that hostage-taking and arbitrary detention are serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL). However, the only source of dissent was expressed by some States who underpinned the torture faced by Palestinians who are arbitrarily detained. These States disagreed with the report and challenged its lack of holistic and balanced approach when addressing the event of 7 Oct 2023. A similar occurrence happened with regards to Ukraine and Russia. 

In essence, throughout the dialogue, representatives upheld the need for prevention and elimination of all torture, including the hostage-takings and those in detention centres. 

Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) strongly condemns torture and all other degrading mistreatments, committed by State and non-State actors, including hostage-taking. We stress the importance of strengthening a non-discrimantory international and national legal system that ends all torture and guaranteeing adequate judicial review for those unfairly and ill treated detainees. GICJ supports the notion that all hostages, whomever they are, must be released unconditionally and immediately. Finally, GICJ underpins the demand that all perpetrators of torture and those who facilitate hostage-takings must be held liable. 

Background 

In resolution 1985/33 (A/HRC/58/55), the UN Commission on Human Rights decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur to examine issues of torture. Throughout the 1970s, many high profile non-State hostage-taking incidents took place. Thus, following negotiations, in 1983 the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages became effective to combat the increasing incidents of hostage-taking. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment came into force in 1987. This international obligationwas adopted to guarantee that no one would fall victim to torture or other degrading treatment or punishment, notably by government authorities. 

For any purpose, hostage-taking is an abhorrent and an internationally unlawful act that is perpetrated by both State and non-State actors. This practice has been an integral element in foreign affairs for millennia, and continues today in complete defiance of international law.  

This offense can occur during war or can be a stand-alone act of terrorism. States, armed groups, and terrorists use hostage-taking in an attempt to gain political, financial or military concessions or benefits. In instances of States contributing to hostage-taking, victims become bargaining chips in tense inter-State relations. The prospects of indefinite detention are high, as the victim’s detention becomes a tool to influence negotiations for release. 

Most victims become subject to all kinds of physical and mental torture. Some experience sexual violence, substandard treatment, threats to kill or psychological harm. The conditions in which hostages are held are unspeakable and horrifying e. Not merely are the victims affected, but so are their families. They are met with anguish, uncertainty, and are powerless amidst the forced disappearance of their relative.  

This is why, addressing and including hostage-taking in the umbrella of torture is imperative. The goals are to revive the engagement of the international community on this topic, reinforce laws and conventions, as well as acknowledging the gaps in international and domestic laws. 

Summary of the Special Rapporteur’s Report

Alice Jill Edwards, the Special Rapporteur report on torture, submitted the report under Human Rights Council resolution 58/55. It provides an assessment of the manifestation of hostage-taking, from the perspective of the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. During the research for this report, it was revealed that the scale is in reality larger and that the geographical spread is wider than statistics indicate. Her report documents cases in China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. 

It is worthy to first assert a key distinction the report makes. According to it, the main element that differentiates hostage-taking from other forms of abductions is the perpetrators’ intention to acquire a concession or gain an advantage, may it be monetary, political or military.  

Moreover, the report declares that individuals do not need to be detained unlawfully or arbitrarily to be considered hostages. On the flip side, lawfully detained persons, like those posing a security threat, can later be used as hostages to pressure a third party. 

The Rise of Jihadism 

The development of jihadist terrorism in the 2000s caused the targeting of schools, women, humanitarian workers, and journalists. In 2014, Boko Haram abducted 276 schoolgirls in north-eastern Nigeria. Subsequently, some were offered in exchange for prisoners. In 2023, it was revealed that 98 of the girls still remained in captivity. Another example is the one of Joe Woodke, a humanitarian worker, who was kidnapped by terrorists in Niger in 2016. He was held hostage in northern Mali for over six years for exchange purposes. 

Casualties During Rescue Operations 

Many non-State hostage-takings have led to mass casualties, often during rescue operations. In 2002, during the rescue operation of the Moscow theatre siege by Chechen militants, around 128 hostages died from the poisoining gas used for the operation. In 2013, an Al-Qaida affiliate targeted the Amenas gas facility in Algeria, capturing 800 hostages. After the Algerian army raid, about 40 hostages died. 

Hostage-Taking by States

The phenomenon of State hostage-taking has increased over the past decade. Some States detain foreign nationals based on fabricated or highly inflated charges to extract confessions, serve foreign policy, and other goals. By manipulating justice systems and the exploitation of procedural mechanisms, these States delay release and simultaneously deny the detainees’ status as hostages or wrongful detainees. 

Since 2010, at least 66 cases of State hostage-taking have been documented in the Islamic Republic of Iran. State hostage-taking during armed conflict also occurs, as exemplified by the Russian Federation’s war in Ukraine. Reportedly, more than 15,000 Ukrainian civilians are held captive to exert political and psychological pressure on Ukraine and intimidate the population. 

The Conditions & Harm Endured  

The position of the report is unequivocal – hostage taking is almost always a form of torture, as physical and psychological torment is severe and long-lasting. Abduction is often met by violence. Hostages experience constant fear of violence and death. Victims suffer beatings, torture (psychological and physical), mock executions, blindfolding for long periods, starvation, prolonged solitary confinements, medical care neglect, suicide attempts, and sexual assault. These are common features documented in the report. 

The horrifying testimonies referred to in the report describe appalling conditions, from “hell holes” in jungles, tunnels, prison, basements, and more. For the making of this report, over 20 former hostages and family members were interviewed. Many testified of “rancid prison conditions and desperate isolation”. 

The Impact on Families & Post-Release Struggles

Families are also victims due to their traumatic experience. They live in doubt and deep anguish, waiting for proof of life and release, trying to avoid financial ruin, and some are silenced by their governments. According to the report, many survivors and their families stated that they did not feel supported by their Governments during their detention and after release. Governments expressed to the Special Rapporteur that they were ill equipped and lacked expertise in assisting survivors. Children of hostages are left confused, they experience sleeplessness, detachment anxiety and withdrawal.

The report highlights how the hostage ordeal is not over for the survivors themselves. If they are lucky enough to be released, many suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), chronic anxiety, and serious health issues which require decades of rehabilitation. Additionally, long-term detainees have found themselves deprived of their jobs or with outdated professional  skills. As a result, they face  debt and the impossibility to return to thelife they lived prior to their abduction

Absolute Prohibition of Hostage-Taking 

There are 176 UN MSs who are signatories of 1979 International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, yet the hostages convention is rarely mentioned.  The Convention demands parties to enact laws to criminalize, investigate, prosecute or extradite, and take measures to mediate the situation faced by hostages, and contribute to the prevention of hostage-taking. 

However, the Convention does not apply to hostage-taking in armed conflict and it does not apply to if the act occurs within one State. For an event to fall within the scope of application of the Convention, there must be a transnational element to the offense. Despite some disagreements, the Special Rapporteur takes the stance that the Convention does apply to State hostage-taking. 

Since the Nuremberg Trials, hostage-taking has been prohibited under IHL and entirely outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. This prohibition, under the Additional Protocols, is considered to be part of customary international law. Article 75 (2)(c) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, affirms that hostage-taking is absolutely forbidden “at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or military agents”. Furthermore, major international bodies - from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to the UN Security Council - have continually and unequivocally condemned all acts of hostage-taking.

Hostage-taking is not explicitly listed as a crime against humanity in the Rome Statute or international law. Nevertheless, its inherent harm and consequences, including  torture, are punishable when part of a widespread attack on a population.

Despite international prohibitions, hostage taking remains to be a “low risk, high reward crime”. For this to change, perpetrators must be held accountable, highlighting the importance of enforcing international frameworks. 

Key Recommendations 

In the report, the Special Rapporteur made requests to States and bodies of the UN. Her main recommendations were: 

• for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to step up its investigation into hostage-taking;
• for States indite and prosecute perpetrators;
• to impose targeted sanctions like magnitsky sanctions (sanctions targetting those responsible for human rights violations), which should be deployed more rigorously against perpetrators;
• to request the appointment of a Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) on hostage-taking;
• to install more multilateral actions and early warning mechanisms for prevention and monitoring,;
• for States to appoint senior hostage liaisons officers to keep families informed and involved;
• for States to provide complete redress and comprehensive support to survivors and their families; and 
• for States to acknowledge the status of children as victims and provide restitution that is child-centric and child-appropriate.

Interactive Dialogue

Opening Statements 

The Special Rapporteur, Ms. Alice Jill Edwards, started the dialogue by discussing her visit to Chile. She applauded the steady progress in the fields of transnational justice, institution building, and human rights. Most importantly, she proposed three main recommendations.

She firstly acknowledged the State’s efforts of holding accountable those responsible for the human rights violations during the Pinochet era. However, many victims remain missing, cases are still pending and alleged perpetrators are yet to be brought to justice. Therefore, she called on the government to accelerate the adjudication of these historical cases. 

Secondly, Ms. Edwards addressed the issue of social unrest and the State’s severe response to public demonstration amounting to human rights violations, like the Estallido Social in 2019. She heard accounts of those who were injured, including permanent blindness. She commended how the Chilean police force is using 3 projectile rubber shot weapon as opposed to the twelve projectiles that were used in the 2019 unrest. However, she stressed that the ammunition containing multiple projectile should be decommissioned due to their inaccuracy, posing significant risk to bystanders. She suggested that merely single shot and non-lethal weapons are acceptable. 

Lastly, she identified how overcrowding and lack of rehabilitation opportunities were the main challenges when assessing the standards of treatment in various locations where people are deprived of liberty. The facilities visited were mostly outdated, in need for renovation or replacements. In some infrastructure, the space per person was far below international standards, constituting an inhumane treatment.

Position of Countries 

The representative of Chile, Mr. Francisco Carvajal, was then given the floor. He reaffirmed the efforts that have been made in Chile to combat torture after the end of the dictatorship. He also confirmed how the country has addressed many reforms in terms of police force and hasadopted measures for reparation. In the context of deprivation of liberty, Mr. Carvajal agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations, stating that significant attention will be placed on the issue. He addressed the reports finding that overcrowded prison is an issue that the country is facing. He attributed this to the new legal reforms and increase in crimes that has resulted in a subsequentincrease in prison population. 

The delegate of the European Union, Ms. Iva Gavrilova, highlighted torture-free trade as a crucial step for elimination. In addition to this, States should consider banning global trade of goods used for this purpose. She raised concerns about the rise of arbitrary detention in State to State relations.

The representative of Ukraine, Ms. Yevheniia Filipenko, urged the need for strong global response to torture. She addressed how the four-year long invasion, committed by Russia, has been marked by widespread use of torture against civilians and prisoners of war. She strongly affirmed that Russia’s coordinated policy amounts to crimes against humanity. Ms. Filipenko reiterated how 15,000 Ukrainian hostages are leveraged to pressure and instill fear amongst the Ukrainian population. She added how these hostages are mostly held incommunicado. Finally, she urged for the international community to take a firm stance and persuade Russia to end the systematic use of torture and release the hostages safely. 

Mr. Muneeb Ahmed, the representative of Pakistan, addressed the panel on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). This was the first delegation to express their disagreement with the Special Rapporteur’s report. Mr. Ahmed stated how the OIC would have appreciated a more holistic approach when addressing Palestine. They were notably disappointed that the report side stepped the plight of Palestinian hostages, many of whom have been incarcerated under conditions of torture for years. In regards to the events of 7 October 2023, he asserted how for eight decades, Palestinians and their inalienable rights have been held hostage by an illegal occupation regime. Mr. Ahmed concluded his statement by highlighting the special procedures must be maintained in the highest standard of impartiality in good faith. 

The representative of the State of Palestine, Ms. Rana Arrabi, reaffirmed that the report failed to provide a holistic and impartial account of torture. She stressed that for decades the Palestinian population has endured Israel’s regime of occupation, which uses mass arbitrary detention as a tool of coercion. She proclaimed how these victims face widespread and systematic abuses and how they are used to pressure civilians into submission. She also addressed that since 7 Oct, as part of a genocidal campaign, thousands of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, including, elders, children, pregnant women, those with serious medical illnesses, and medical staff have been arbitrarily detained and transferred to Israel in a blatant violation of international law. The names and whereabouts cannot be identified, they are denied access to lawyers, and, in some cases, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) hasbeen banned to visit them. 

The representative of Zambia, Ms Eunice M. Tembo Luambi, highlighted the importance of rehabilitation and redress for victims of torture. She interestingly encouraged the Special Rapporteur to explore existing gaps in the international legal framework against hostage-taking, notably the evolving forms of hostage-taking. This would increase the  incorporation of hostage-taking as an explicit offense, in the drafting of articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.    

The representative of Indonesia, Ms. Ainan Nuran, also agreed that the report lacked balance in its assessment. She acknowledged how the report rightfully condemns hostage-taking by non-State actors; however, it fails to properly address the systematic and arbitrary detention without due process particularly by Israel in the OPT. She reiterated how thousands of Palestinians - including children, journalists and political figures - remained detained indefinitely without formal charges, amounting to serious violations of IHL and human rights law.  Therefore, she also urged the Special Rapporteur for a more impartial and comprehensive approach in addressing unlawful detention and all forms of hostage-taking to ensure universal accountability. 

Ms Elhameh Paydar, representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, began by expressing their total dismay as the topic was not properly treated. She openly said how the comments communicated to the Special Rapporteur were not considered in regards to paragraph 24 and 29 (refering to specific cases of Iran’s involvement in hostage-taking). She claimed that the report failed to discuss the historical context when addressing the events that took place 50 years ago. As a result, she rejected the contents of paragraph 29, as it was in their belief that the assertions made were erroneous and politicised. She ended by stating that it was “shocking” that the Special Rapporteur omitted the Iranian hostages in the United States or those who are on the verge of extradition.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mr. Ho Tong Hyok, completely rejected the report and allegations of the Special Rapporteur, as she asserted unsubstantiated and unfounded data about North Korea. He proclaimed that the Special Rapporteur attempted to undermine North Korea’s social system by suggesting the presence of hostage-taking. He strongly drew attention to how the report listed developing countries but does not include hostage-taking practiced by the US and other Western countries. He concluded how this adds to the global acknowledgement that the UN human rights mechanisms are being politicized, amounting to a great violation of the principle of universality, objectivity, non-selectivity, and non-politisation. 

The representative of the Russian Federation, Mr. Artem Isakov, disagreed with the biased approach of the Russian’s section of the report. He emphasized that Russia condemns the use of torture and guarantees citizens' rights to be free from torture, as enshrined in the Russian Constitution. He also urged the Special Rapporteur to refrain from practicing the politicised and double standard approach. 

Mr. Jiang Han, the representative of China, categorically rejected the arbitrary of foreign nationals in China in the report, claiming the country follows the Convention and engages in discussions with the committee against torture. He affirmed that China’s legislation explicitly prohibits forcing confession with torture and any mistreatment on detainees, as well as provides redress to any violation of the law.  He shed light on how some countries have problems of racial discrimination, where arbitrary operations in prisons and ill treatment are targeted on migrants. 

Mr. Mohibullah Taib, the representative of Afghanistan, addressed how the systematic use of torture is still ongoing under the Taliban. He revealed how brutal the physical and psychological abuse is against detainees. This includes public flaggings, prolonged suspensions from…, suffocation techniques, mock executions, and other degrading practices that remain entrenched mechanisms carried out with impunity. He underlined how this is not incidental but reflects a deliberate pattern.

The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Ms Marisela Del Valle Rojas Garmendia, rejected the groundless allegations in the report that allude to arbitrary detention of foreign citizens with the goal of using them to obtain financial gains, with no evidence. She also stressed the code of conduct, and that exercised functions should be based on objective and credible facts. 

Mr. Muhammadou M.O. Kah’s, the delegate of Gambia, assertions suggested how Gambia is one of the countries indicating improvements in the area of torture. The country has taken significant reforms to strengthen the legal and institutional frameworks aimed at preventing torture. He announced how the establishment of the National Human Rights Commission, with the enactment of the Prohibition of Torture Act 2023, represent pivotal steps in the right direction.

Non-Governmental Organisations 

Following the representatives of States, Delegates of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) addressed the Council. Many NGOs voiced their concern for Palestinian hostages, especially  women and children who are arbitrarily detained. Thus, they expressed their discontent over the report for not stressing enough the abominable torture faced by Palestinians, some even implying that silence facilitates impunity. On the other hand, a few NGOs commended the report for voicing the Israeli hostages taken on 7 October. 

All NGOs underpinned the importance of States respecting international obligations under both Conventions, in regards to torture and hostage-taking. They advocated for the rights of abducted individuals and those detained on baseless charges. They also upheld that impunity cannot be the rule of this issue, and that perpetrators must be identified and prosecuted by the justice system. 

Concluding Remarks 

For the concluding remarks of the interactive dialogue, the Special Rapporteur,, further underscored that hostage-taking is not an appropriate tactic to settle grievances or conduct international relations. She expressed both her confidence that the report is on the right side of history and her hopes that it will reinvigorate interesting debate on this topic, which has been regrettably long neglected. She commemorated the victims and shared her hope that the report served the victims so they know they cannot be forgotten. 

Finally, she outlined her two main recommendations. She first encouraged States that are facing challenges of national abductions to appoint a senior level liason officer to help families with constant updates and in taking part innegotiations. She then called on the Secretary General to establish a SRSG on hostage-taking, emphasizing that, in her view, “without that we will be here in another few years”.

Position of Geneva International Centre for Justice 

Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) calls for all victims and survivors of hostage-taking to meet with justice. They must be compensated and rehabilitated with long-term financial, medical, and psychological assistance. GICJ also encourages the Special Rapporteur’s call for the UN to create a responsible entity, like the SRSG, to further advocate for the interests of victims of hostage-taking. GICJ condemns those who use individuals as bargaining chips. Hostage-taking is a cruel game, and it cannot be allowed to be an accepted tool of diplomacy or warfare. GICJ urges the entire international community to contribute in the complete eradication of hostage-taking. Every State must play their part to make this happen. 

#HRC58  #HumanRights #InternationalLaw #torture #hostagetaking #GenevaInternationalCentreforJustice #GICJ