A/HRC/23/39 equality or promotion of gender equality, can also make it difficult, if not impossible, for associations working on these issues to raise funds. 9 1. Financing terrorism 22. One of the most common reasons used by governments to limit access to funding relate to security measures, including protection against terrorism and prevention of moneylaundering. The crime of terrorism, which aims at the “destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy, threaten[s] territorial integrity and security of States and destabiliz[es] legitimately constituted Governments”,10 has devastating consequences and has caused tragic human suffering. The Special Rapporteur is aware that States have an interest in protecting “national security or public safety”, which are legitimate grounds for restricting freedom of association, but he underscores that there is also need for States to comply with international human rights law while countering terrorism. 23. Under the Covenant, any limitation must not only pursue a legitimate interest but also be “necessary in a democratic society.” It is only when groups engage in the aforementioned confined activities that they can be labelled as a terrorist group. It is therefore a violation of international law for counter-terrorism or “anti-extremism” measures to be used as a pretext to constrain dissenting views or independent civil society. As highlighted by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, “[s]tates shall not invoke national security as a justification for measures aimed at suppressing opposition or to justify repressive practices against its population. The onus is on the Government to prove that a threat to one of the grounds for limitation exists and that the measures are taken to deal with the threat.”11 In order to meet the proportionality and necessity test, restrictive measures must be the least intrusive means to achieve the desired objective and be limited to the associations falling within the clearly identified aspects characterizing terrorism only. They must not target all civil society associations, as is regrettably the case in a new law against organized crime in Venezuela. Laws drafted in general terms limiting, or even banning funding under the justification of counter-terrorism do not comply with the requisites of “proportionality” and “necessity”. 24. The Special Rapporteur also calls for sectoral equity, noting that commercial companies and other entities have been abused for terrorist purposes. He calls on States to avoid measures that disproportionately target or burden civil society organizations, such as imposing onerous vetting rules, procedures or other CSO-specific requirements not applied to the corporate sector writ large. 25. The Special Rapporteur notes a set of standards developed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an intergovernmental body established in 1989, which specifically addresses the issue of money-laundering and terrorist financing. FATF Recommendation 8 (formerly Special Recommendation VIII) on non-profit organizations recommends that “countries review the adequacy of laws and regulations [to ensure] entities are not abused for the financing of terrorism.” The Special Rapporteur underlines –as does an instructive World Bank working paper analysing FATF’s response towards financing terrorism –, that very few, if any, instances of terrorism financing have been detected as a result of CSOspecific supervisory measures; “rather it is financial intelligence that is essential.” 12 9 10 11 12 8 See for instance, the opinion adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on communication No. 39/2012 addressed to Belarus (A/HRC/WGAD/2012/39), para. 47. Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/80, preambular para. 11. See A/61/267, para. 20. Emile van der Does de Willebois, Nonprofit Organizations and the Combatting of Terrorism Financing: A Proportionate Response, World Bank Working Paper No. 208 (Washington D.C.,