DAY 2

Day 2
The first moderated caucus was raised by the delegate of Thailand in the topic “Right to privacy while countering terrorism”. Thailand felt that privacy was the basis of all other rights. The delegate proposed interference with privacy should be authorized by law and “proportionality” should be present.
USA felt that the international laws of interrogation of detained should be extended to privacy laws as well and that INGOs should be involved in the collection of such intercepted data. USA also suggested that biometric data should also be shared if that shall help the combat against terrorism. Senegal replied by saying that semi-governmental organizations are already looking after the rights of privacy and they should be supported even further.
Russian Federation made a strong point about the hierarchy of fundamental rights of people and felt that there are more important things than intercepting communication. Russia also felt that there is a need having proof for intercepting private information. This point was taken forward by delegate of Jordon and Cameroon and both felt that the HRC should establish data protection guidelines and transparency needs to be present and that the reason for infringement of privacy should be made public. Delegate of Burkina Faso felt that infringement of privacy should be used only when a strong threat of possible attack is present and that it should occur for a specified period of time. Burkina Faso also suggested that violation of privacy without relevant reason should allow compensation and other forms of redressal. Delegate of Norway felt that there was a need of having a legal basis for data sharing and of defining the powers and mandate of the committee that intercept the private information of the people.
The second moderated caucus for the day was on the topic “creation of global declaration for the protection of data”, proposed by delegate of Saudi Arabia.
1. Saudi Arabia emphasized that the finance and technology required for collecting private information may not be feasible for Sub-Saharan countries and other developing nations and hence another committee/panel should overlook the CTITF functioning. Saudi Arabia also mentioned that information sharing does pose questions of infringement of the sovereignty of a country. Republic of Moldova however disagreed and felt that data must be shared universally and protection of data from an unauthorized body should be emphasized. USA also felt that all countries cannot intercept data due to technological barriers. UK also felt that terrorism can be controlled if regular checks on public communication are made.
2. Senegal emphasized on diplomatic talks and checks on balances of information exchanges between committee.
3. Thailand on the other hand felt that there should be no interference from an external body and only bilateral exchanges of information should take place. Delegates of Qatar, Kyrgyzstan also agreed with this point.
4. Burkina Faso made a very strong point by saying that the panel so proposed under the global declaration can seek the membership of ex-judiciary member which are competent tp work independently of any government guidance to ensure equality. He also mentioned that the right to withhold information can be exercised if needed.
5. Brazil felt that no misuse of the intercepted data should take place. China added that information should be shared only when imminent theat.
6. Gabon proposed having the branches of the proposed international body in all nations.
7. Poland felt that if privacy has been violated for invalid reasons, there should a redressal mechanism present.
The next moderated caucus discussed the result of the unmediated caucus of session 2. After taking into consideration, the suggestions of the director and chair on the issue of a global deceleration, it was noted by the EB that the suggestion of a new committee/panel was redundant; the following reforms were noted by delegates:
1. Thailand recommended to the GA 3 that there shall be no interference by an external body on the domestic affairs of a country and that if a country has disputed information regarding to terrorist activities, data exchanges may be facilitated through the Interpol.
2. Uganda encouraged bilateral talks over the creation of a new entity with a similar mandate
3. USA supported the global declaration as a necessary code of conduct required while intercepting private information and felt that “there is no need for any third party” and that “the information so shared should be of the form: to, from and nature”. This point drew the criticism of a lot of delegates and was pointed out to be logically unfeasible by the director. Cuba supported the point on bilateral share of information as well.
4. Ukraine supported a similar code of conduct and felt that no country should be forced to provide data (it should be noted that the UN cannot force any country to do so anyhow) and proposed that data collection should take place about the interrogations in the detention centres as well.
5. Norway felt that there should be limitation to data sharing when the sovereignty of a country might be affected. It was also proposed that training should be provided to protect the data from leaking out.
The next moderated caucus was a discussion on the working papers submitted to the executive board. Corrections and suggestions were made by the EB there and then.
The next MC was proposed by Poland on the topic of “rights and freedoms of detainees and arbitrary detentions”
1. Poland noted that judicial rights are not given to the detained and that a free trail is utmost necessary and it should be ensured that justice is provided in time, without delays. Also it was suggested that compensation may e provided to the family of detained if the detainee is later found to be innocent. Saudi Arabia supported this point and added that the right to rehabilitation and redressal was necessary,
2. Spain focused on the incommunicado detentions and felt that detained should be given a lawyer, a fair trial should be conducted, and family of the detainee must be informed of the imprisonment.
3. Thailand felt that such detentions should only be made under the existing legislature of the country and not contradictory to it.
4. Ukraine wanted detained to have right to life, food, and clothing. It was suggested that no forced confessions should be prompted as the same can be misleading and that all interrogations should be under record. Bangladesh supported this point. (EB felt that the same can be manipulated)
5. Russia accused USA of HR violation by continuing with Guntamno bay detention center. USA reassured the delegates that the Guntamno Bay detention center shall be closed down as soon as possible.
6. Brazil also noted that often hygienic conditions are also denied to the detained which have a long term effect.
7. France felt that the role of the special rappoteur with respect to detention of suspected terrorist personnel should be strengthened.
8. Gabon made a important point by saying that the detention must be authorized by a warrant and that there should be a time limit on the duration of the interrogation.
9. Libya made an extremely important point by saying that after the detainee is found innocent and released, his/her life can be under threat by the terrorist organization with which the detainee was presumed to be affiliated. It was suggested that such detained may be provided with greater security and ensured that there is no discrimination toward them and that their reintegration in the community be ensured.
10. Mexico felt that such centers should be open to UN review.
11. Pakistan condemned torture as it has a profound psychological impact.
12. Norway felt that international standard of prison and detention centers should be complied with.