A/HRC/24/47 II. Conceptual issues6 A. Definition of terrorist hostage-taking 6. The notion of hostage-taking was widely debated during the process leading to the adoption of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages.7 The outcome of discussions on the concept was captured in article 1 of the Convention, which reads: Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (“hostage-taking”) within the meaning of this Convention. 7. It is evident from the internationally codified definition of hostage-taking that the act requires two sets of elements, namely (a) the seizure or detention of another person; and (b) a threat to kill, injure or continue to detain that person in order to compel a third party to do or abstain from something as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage. In other words, a typical hostage-taking situation involves at least three parties, whereby “the hostage (a) is the means by which the hostage-taker (b) [seeks to] gain[s] something from a third party (c)”.8 While the first set of elements may be common to all acts of hostage-taking, the second constitutes the basis for establishing a distinction between terrorist and non-terrorist hostage-taking situations. 8. Article 1 of the above-mentioned Convention does not explicitly link the definition of hostage-taking to the notion of terrorism. However, the background to the adoption of the instrument indicates that the drafters were primarily concerned with terrorist hostagetaking incidents. The single mention of terrorism in the preamble to the instrument clearly states that it was adopted out of an urgent necessity “to develop international cooperation between States in devising and adopting effective measures for the prevention, prosecution and punishment of all acts of taking of hostages as manifestations of international terrorism”. 9. Lack of express references to the terrorist nature of hostage-taking in the substantive provisions of the Convention is, arguably, rooted in the prevailing disagreement between states over the concept (and definition) of terrorism at the time when the instrument was negotiated. 6 7 8 4 The members of the drafting group thank Felix Ndahinda, Rianne Letschert and Melissa McAuliffe for their important input during the drafting of the present report. General Assembly resolution 34/146. For background information on discussions over various proposals, see Ved P. Nanda, “Progress Report on the United Nations’ Attempt to Draft an International Convention against the Taking of Hostages”, Ohio Northern University Law Review, vol. 6, No. 1, 1979, pp. 89–108; S. S. Kaye, ��The United Nations Effort to Draft a Convention on the Taking of Hostages”, American University Law Review, vol. 27, No. 2, 1978, pp. 433–487; and Robert Rosenstock, “International Convention against the Taking of Hostages: Another International Community Step Against Terrorism”, Journal of International Law and Policy, vol. 9,1980, pp.169– 195. R. D. Crelinsten, “The Study of Hostage-Taking: A System Approach”, in Ronald D. Crelinsten et al., Report on Management Training Seminar Hostage-Taking Problems of Prevention and Control (Montrea1, University of Montreal, September 1976), p. 4. Available from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/49367NCJRS.pdf.