Why is the Swiss UN Special Rapporteur being defamed like this?

(26 February 2022) ts. The UN Special Rapporteur Nils Melzer* announced that he is resigning from his post prematurely. Behind are downright reputation-damaging reports in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” and the Zurich “Tages-Anzeiger”. In the following we publish Nils Melzer's correction to the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”. The latter refused to print his counter statement.

First, some considerations: Nils Melzer has fulfilled his role as UN Special Rapporteur on Torture in the best sense. As a Swiss citizen, he also presents the country from its best side. One can be proud of a courageous personality who pursues possible human rights violations worldwide – without fear or prejudice. This commitment is neither highly decorated, nor does its consistent exercise result in much popularity with the powerful and influential.

Without Nils Melzer’s tireless efforts, for example, the Australian investigative journalist Julian Assange, through whom we learned of the crimes committed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the first place, would already be sitting in a US prison today without a fair trial.¹ But Melzer has also investigated inappropriate assaults by police officers during operations in Europe. He brought up painful subjects. This did not suit everybody.

The “Süddeutsche Zeitung” has now “ditched” him in an article. Obviously, the aim was to silence him. Even if official statements on the matter are to the contrary. It is disconcerting that the Zurich “Tages-Anzeiger”, which cooperates close￾ly with the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”, redouble. What is weighs even more heavily is that neither any other major Swiss media reported correctly on Melzer’s reason for resigning, nor did official bodies stand up for him. Nils Melzer deserved at least that.

1 Swiss Standpoint. Great Britain wants to extradite Julian Assange. https://www.schweizer-standpunkt.ch/news-detailansicht-en-recht/great-britain-wants-to-extradite-julian-assange.html, 30 December 2021

“Questionable methods?”

Reply by UN Special Rapporteur Nils Melzer, 27 January 2022

by Nils Melzer*

In the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” of 25 January 2022, Thomas Kirchner and Ronen Steinke accuse me of “questionable methods” already in the title and even claimed online that I am acting as a “shrill key witness of Corona deniers and Putin friends”. The strongly applied criticism of my conduct of office as UN Special Rapporteur is astonishing, especially since I took a lot of time explaining my working methods and motives to Mr Kirchner on the phone. But a differentiated presentation does not seem to be the aim of the article.

Instead of seriously addressing the uncomfortable facts underlying my public statements, the authors push me into the corner of conspiracy theorists with disconcerting zeal. To do so, they point to media outlets, panelists and Twitter accounts that are suspect to them, as if I had to vouch for the integrity of everyone I deal with professionally. Whether in war zones, in prisons, in diplomacy or in the media landscape, effective human rights advocacy always requires that one remains in dialogue with all relevant actors, even if one disagrees.

Furthermore, the authors seem to take offence at the fact that I criticise torture and ill-treatment even when the victims are not politically correct, practice civil disobedience, or may even have committed crimes. What they forget is that the prohibition of torture is absolute and without exception. They would probably acknowledge that I do not become an “Al-Qaeda apologist” just because I criticise torture in Guantanamo. By the same token, I do not become a “Corona denier”, “Putin supporter” or “conspiracy theorist” just because I denounce the brutal beating and mauling of defenceless demonstrators by Western police officers and their official dogs.

Unpunished cruelty traumatises and embitter not only those directly involved, but also millions of silent spectators in the net, and thus brutalises society as a whole. Contrary to what the article suggests, with the appropriate experience and expertise, it is well possible to conclude that torture has taken place on the basis of a meaningful “film” without further investigation – as in the case of the Dutch police or in the case of George Floyd.

It is not surprising that the police forces concerned take no pleasure in my allegations of ill-treatment. All UN Special Rapporteurs regularly receive complaints – often also from Moscow and Beijing – who, like Mr Kirchner and Mr Steinke, are of the opinion that we go “too far” in the exercise of our mandate. Mostly, however, such procedural concerns serve primarily to distract from the cruelty and harmfulness of the crimes complained of and to hide their own responsibilities.

It is like a foul in a football game: nobody likes to be accused of torture and the moral self-righteousness of the political opponent is also always guaranteed. The fact that the referee might simply be concerned with respecting the rules – even in the case of the token footballer of the favourite team – is often no longer understood in the heat of the moment. This is precisely what makes our work as UN Special Rapporteur not only indispensable, but also gruelling and thankless, especially since it is about so much more than a ball game.

I therefore very much regret that the authors do not seem to be interested in the immense suffering of millions of victims of torture and ill-treatment, nor in the enormous difficulties faced in the daily struggle against inhumanity – above all the widespread tendency towards indifference, denial and whitewashing.

Unfortunately, however, the authors are not content with distorting facts; they also enrich them with untruths. For example, I never claimed that the two Swedish women involved in the Assange case were “completely untrustworthy”. As I make unequivocally clear in my book “Der Fall Julian Assange – Geschichte einer Verfolgung” (Piper 2021, p. 121), the opposite is the case.

The dishonest attempt to push me into the corner of “Kremlin apologists”, “right-wing extremists”, “conspiracy ideologues”, “hate propagandists” or the “QAnon scene” is also downright grotesque. Anyone who monitors Twitter accounts for professional reasons, refers to indisputably authentic videos or gives factually sound interviews outside the journalistic mainstream is marking professional commitment, but not political sympathy. There is a point at which critical journalism becomes malicious character assassination.

What pleases me, on the other hand, is that people who know me better apparently attested to my “high idealism” and a “David-versus-Goliath mentality” in conversation with the authors – indeed, an indispensable quality in the battle of attrition against the recalcitrant lethargy of state authorities in enforcing the ban on torture and ill-treatment.

* Nils Melzer is a Swiss diplomat, legal scholar, professor of international law in Glasgow and Geneva, and was appointed Special Rapporteur on Torture by the UN Human Rights Council on 1 November 2016. Prior to his appointment as Special Rapporteur, he worked for twelve years at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as a delegate, Deputy Chief of Mission in various crisis areas, and legal advisor. In the future, he will again work for the ICRC.

Source: https://medium.com/@njmelzer/fragw%C3%BCrdige-methoden-56f6b3340357, 27 January 2022

(Translation “Swiss Standpoint”)