Terrorism violates the basic human rights of its victims

The classical interpretation of human rights argues that only states can violate human rights. Human rights treaties bind only states and not individuals, non-state actors like rebel groups or others since the signatories are only states. Many states support this view. For instance, the Argentinian Government has stated the following in one of their United Nations submissions: “The Government does not accept the argument that the acts of international terrorism constitute a human rights violation, since, by definition, only states are capable of violating human rights.” Official statements by governments are not enough to create international human rights obligations for terrorists. Additionally, human rights obligations for terrorists may allow states to use the fight against terrorism as an excuse to violate human rights themselves.^[6] While terrorist groups may engage in human trafficking and organized crime, which violate human rights to support their activities, the main aim of their existence is usually not to engage in these crimes. In cases where terrorism functions as the weapon of the weak (such as for the Kurds in Iraq), the human rights violations are justifiable. In fact, terrorism occurs mainly in states where there are gross human rights violations. If a civilian population is at risk because of brutal state behavior, terrorism can be used to ensure the human rights of the oppressed population. For example, the Constitutive Act of the African Union goes further to provide for the right of intervention (through acts of violence) in case of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.^[3]