Hostage-taking as torture

The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Alice Jill Edwards, undertook a number of notable activities during the period from 15 December 2023 to 31 December 2024.¹

1. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-torture. ↩

She issued 80 communications to States and non-State actors and 50 press statements, either individually or jointly with other mandate holders.² Throughout the period, she engaged with many Governments and continued to push for action on allegations.

2. See https://spcommreports.ohchr.org. ↩

She sent out 39 requests for country visits, but none were accepted to take place during 2024. The Special Rapporteur is grateful to the States that have since sent her invitations and looks forward to restarting country visits in 2025. She thanks Switzerland for the provision of a Junior Professional Officer to support the mandate. The arrangement ended in October 2024.

The Special Rapporteur presented two thematic reports during the reporting period, on current issues and good practices in prison management³ at the fifty-fifth session of the Human Rights Council, and on good practices and challenges in investigating, prosecuting and preventing wartime sexual torture, and providing rehabilitation for victims and survivors⁴ to the Third Committee of the General Assembly at its seventy-ninth session.

3. A/HRC/55/52. ↩
4. A/79/181. ↩

During the year, the Special Rapporteur undertook three study visits. The first, to Dahuk and Erbil in northern Iraq (June), explored the challenges and successes of implementing the groundbreaking Yazidi Survivors Law for survivors of Da’esh crimes. It was organized by the Coalition for Just Reparations and the Jiyan Foundation for Human Rights. She met with survivors and with the authorities in northern Iraq.

In September, the Special Rapporteur met with victims and survivors of torture from 14 sub-Saharan African countries in Kenya at a three-day hearing organized by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, the World Organization Against Torture and the Independent Medico Legal Unit. The participating survivors issued the Nairobi Declaration, which she commends to States.⁵

5. See https://irct.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ENG-Nairobi-Delca-design-2.pdf. ↩

In December, the Special Rapporteur traveled to Israel and Palestine (Ramallah) to meet authorities, Israeli former hostages and families of hostages, Palestinian victims of torture, academia and civil society organizations. Among other activities, she conducted site visits to locations that were attacked on 7 October 2023.

There was considerable public interest in the work of the mandate, with hundreds of media mentions in more than 70 States. She published opinion pieces in Le Monde,⁶ Foreign Policy,⁷ The Guardian⁸ and The National (United Arab Emirates).⁹ She was interviewed on multiple global news networks, in several podcasts¹⁰ and was featured in a documentary.¹¹

6. “Armes: « Le commerce ignoble des outils de torture doit être interdit »“, Le Monde, 21 December 2023. ↩
7. “Egypt is obliged to let Gaza refugees in”, Foreign Policy, 30 April 2024. ↩
8. “Prisoners serving sentences with no clear end is a stain on British justice – it also amounts to torture”, The Guardian, 20 May 2024. ↩
9. “The Assad regime were world leaders in torture. Its survivors will determine Syria’s future”, The National, 20 December 2024. ↩
10. United Nations, “Haunted by tales of torture”, Awake at Night, podcast, 15 December 2023; Coalition for Just Reparations, “Implementing the Yazidi Survivors Law”, More than Ink on Paper, podcast, 26 June 2024; “Trapped: The IPP Prisoner Scandal”, The Daily Mail Test, podcast, 28 June 2024; Swissinfo, “Forty years of the Convention against Torture: are we honoring it?”, Inside Geneva, podcast, 1 October 2024; and “Sexual torture with Alice Edwards”, Asymmetrical Haircuts, podcast, 25 October 2024. ↩
11. Britain’s Forgotten Prisoners, documentary film, Martin Read, director (2024). ↩

The Special Rapporteur’s major speaking engagements included:
(a) A speech at the meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on key trends and challenges in torture prevention and response (February);
(b) A statement at a side-event during the fifty-fifth session of the Human Rights Council on the theme “Preventing torture in prison: current issues and good practices in prison management”, organized by the Danish Institute Against Torture (March);
(c) A keynote address on the theme “Repairing the irreparable: remedies, rehabilitation and reparations for survivors, families and communities impacted by sexual torture in armed conflict,” at an event organized by the Coalition for Just Reparations in Erbil (June);
(d) A presentation at the forty-seventh Round Table on Current Issues of International Humanitarian Law that provided insights on contemporary challenges and protections in sexual torture in armed conflict. Held in Sanremo, Italy, this event was organized by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (September);
(e) An address at an event hosted by the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations and the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Conflict-Related Sexual Violence on the theme “15 years of advancing accountability for sexual violence in conflict: prosecuting conflict-related sexual violence as international crimes under universal jurisdiction – the case of Al-Khatib”, in New York (October);
(f) A presentation at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York about preventing and responding to wartime sexual torture (October);
(g) Opening remarks at an event on the theme “25 years of implementation of the Convention against Torture” in Indonesia, organized by Komnas Perempuan (October);
(h) As an official guest at the Ministerial Conference on the Human Dimension of Ukraine’s 10-Point Peace Formula, co-organized by Canada, Norway and Ukraine, in Montreal, Canada, a presentation on the humane treatment of civilians and prisoners of war (October);
(i) Opening and closing remarks at the webinar series of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims focusing on her report on sexual torture, which gathered approximately 400 civil society participants (September and October);
(j) Addresses at two events marking the fortieth anniversary of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, organized by the Committee against Torture and the Convention against Torture Initiative, respectively, in Geneva. She also spoke at an event of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention commemorating 100 sessions (November);
(k) A presentation at a Council of Europe workshop on the theme “Strengthening multilateral efforts to curb trade in torture and death penalty goods” (November) and a presentation at a meeting of the Torture-Free Trade Network of non-governmental organizations (December);
(l) The keynote address to launch the Hebrew version of the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol) at an event organized by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (December);
(m) Closing remarks at an academic conference on the theme “From hopelessness to hopefulness: strengthening children’s rights and well-being during and after crisis” at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel (December);
(n) Exchanges at a round table with academics, experts and government authorities on how the legal framework prohibiting sexual torture should be used to investigate and prosecute such crimes, hosted by the Dinah Project and Bar-Ilan University, Israel (December).

Hostage-taking for any purpose is an abhorrent and inhuman act, which is “incompatible with universally accepted standards of human conduct”.¹² It is an internationally unlawful act that is perpetrated by State and non-State actors. This practice was integral to foreign affairs in the ancient world and has taken place for millenniums. It continues unabated to this day, in total disregard of international law and our collective humanity.

12. A/31/242, annex, para. 5. ↩

States, armed groups, terrorists and criminals use hostage-taking to try to secure concessions or benefits. These benefits may be political, financial or military in nature. Hostage-taking happens during war or as an act of terrorism. In the case of hostage-taking by States, individuals become pawns in often strained inter-State relations. It is a cruel game.

In most cases, hostages are subjected to forms of physical and mental torture. Most also experience other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Some are also subjected to sexual torture.¹³ Torture, substandard treatment, threats to kill or injure and the prospect of indefinite detention are used to influence negotiations for their release. These individuals are being mistreated and denigrated, as their captors pursue the “best possible deal”.

13. See A/79/181. ↩

The conditions that hostages are held in can be unspeakable – in recent cases these have included unsanitary cells or facilities in remote and inaccessible locations, such as in jungles or in underground cellars, caves and tunnels. Hostages are often deprived of food, water, light and clean air. Many experience extended solitary confinement and are deprived of contact with the outside world. Medical care is often absent or wholly inadequate. Proof of life may be refused, or take the form of forced and traumatic video “confessions”.

In all scenarios, hostages and their families are greatly impacted. The physical and mental pain or suffering they experience meets the threshold of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The uncertainty about whether and when individuals will be released, causes significant psychological harm to victims and their relatives. Families are powerless and, like the relatives of the forcibly disappeared, may experience despair.

The present report addresses hostage-taking from the perspective of the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The goals include reinvigorating international engagement on this issue, reinforcing laws and conventions prohibiting torture and the taking of hostages, as well as addressing gaps in international and national laws and policies for the prevention of hostage-taking and the protection of hostages. The report does not cover recommendations regarding negotiation strategies.

As noted in the preamble to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, hostage-taking undermines the collective aspiration of the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international peace and security. It also undermines full implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and other prohibitions against torture.

The term “State hostage-taking” is used here to describe hostage-taking by State actors, including organs or agents whose conduct is attributable to the State.¹⁴ “Non-State hostage-taking” is used when the hostage-taking is carried out by non-State actors or entities. Often, cases do not neatly fall into one category or the other.

14. See articles 4–8 of the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. ↩

The Special Rapporteur, individually or together with other mandate holders, has sent communications to States over the years concerning hostage-taking and the treatment of hostages.¹⁵ The Special Rapporteur reminds all States that all hostages should be unconditionally and immediately released.

15. See recent communications: ARE 3/2022; PSE 3/2023; and OTH 106/2024. All communications mentioned in the present report are available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments. See, also CAT/C/YEM/CO/2/Rev.1, para. 14. ↩

The Special Rapporteur is grateful to all who contributed to the present report.¹⁶ She is especially indebted to the former hostages and members of their families who shared their experiences and views during the preparation of the report. In the process, they recounted traumatic and painful experiences. Their bravery and determination to see change is testament to the strength of the human spirit in the face of the most atrocious abuses.¹⁷

16. Submissions were received from 8 States, and 43 other contributors. All submissions will be available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2024/hostage-taking-torture-legal-frameworks-supporting-victims-and-families-and. ↩
17. More than 20 former hostages or members of their families of multiple nationalities were interviewed for the present report, covering both non-State and State hostage-taking in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Written testimonies were also received from former hostages. ↩

There are no official global statistics for the number of hostage-taking incidents. However, over the past 50 years there have been many high-profile incidents that have received widespread attention, as well as numerous other, less covered cases.

Hostage International has helped more than 500 people affected by hostage-taking and arbitrary detention outside their home countries over the past two decades. At any time, they support up to 70 individuals in 10 different countries.¹⁸ In 2023, 91 humanitarian workers were taken hostage or arbitrarily detained globally.¹⁹ Hostage Aid Worldwide reported that, at the end of the same year, there were people of 53 nationalities being held hostage or arbitrarily detained around the world.²⁰

18. Submission of Hostage International. ↩
19. Submission of Protect Humanitarians. ↩
20. Hostage Aid Worldwide, “Global hostage report 2023”, p. 13. ↩

While hostage-taking has evolved over the decades with geopolitical shifts, advances in technology and changes in global security, the reasons for hostage-taking have remained consistent: to obtain concessions or gains by detaining people unlawfully and using them as bargaining chips.

In the 1970s, hostage-taking was driven by political motivations and terrorism.²¹ High profile non-State hostage-taking incidents,²² led to the negotiation and adoption of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages in 1979. Hostage-taking had become a global problem that threatened international peace and security.

21. Ibid., p. 15. ↩
22. These included the kidnapping of Israeli athletes by Palestinian militants at the Munich Olympics (1972), the hostage-taking at the German Embassy in Stockholm by the non-State Baader-Meinhof Group (1975), the hostage-taking at Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries headquarters in Vienna by pro-Palestinian militants (1975) and the Air France hijacking by leftist and Palestinian militants in 1976, which ended with the Entebbe raid. ↩

In the subsequent decades there were further prominent cases of hostage-taking. In 1979, 53 diplomats and citizens of the United States of America were taken hostage in the United States embassy in Tehran by armed students, whose actions were later endorsed by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The stand-off was finally resolved after 444 days, and after a failed rescue attempt. During the civil war in Lebanon (1975–1990), at least 104 foreign hostages were taken by Hezbollah and other armed groups. Other protracted cases include the kidnappings by the Fuerza Alternative Revolucionaria del Común (FARC) in Colombia from 1982 to 2012, in which extortion was prevalent.²³ In 1996 and 1997, leftist militants held more than 400 hostages at the Japanese Ambassador’s residence in Lima in an incident that lasted 126 days.

23. Submission of Germán Parra Gallego. ↩

The rise in jihadist terrorism in the 2000s, led to the targeting of school children, women, humanitarian workers and journalists in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and the Russian Federation. Targets included American James Foley, a freelance journalist who was abducted in the Syrian Arab Republic and murdered by Da’esh.²⁴ In 2014, Boko Haram abducted 276 schoolgirls in north-eastern Nigeria, and some were subsequently offered in exchange for prisoners.²⁵ In 2023, it was reported that 98 of the girls remained in captivity.²⁶ Jeff Woodke, a humanitarian aid worker, was abducted by terrorists in Niger in 2016 and held hostage in northern Mali for more than six years for exchange purposes.²⁷ The Houthis in Yemen are currently holding at least 30 humanitarians,²⁸ with an implied intention of using them as leverage in the broader regional conflict.

24. Submission of the Foley Foundation. ↩
25. See Human Rights Watch, “Those Terrible Weeks in Their Camp”: Boko Haram Violence against Women and Girls in Northeast Nigeria (2014). ↩
26. See Amnesty International, “Nigeria: nine years after Chibok girls’ abducted, authorities failing to protect children”, 14 April 2023. ↩
27. Submission of Jeff Woodke. ↩
28. Submission of Protect Humanitarians; and United Nations, “UN, INGOs call for immediate release of detained personnel in Yemen”, United Nations News, 12 October 2024, available at https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155651. ↩

Many non-State hostage-takings have resulted in mass casualties, often during rescue operations and raids. The Moscow theatre siege in 2002 by Chechen militants resulted in the deaths of approximately 128 hostages, mostly from poisoning from the gas used in the rescue operation.²⁹ In the Beslan school siege, more than 300 people, including 186 children, were killed when Russian forces attempted to liberate more than 1,000 people who had been taken hostage by Islamists.³⁰ In 2013, an Al-Qaida affiliate attacked the Amenas gas facility in Algeria, taking 800 hostages. After the subsequent Algerian army raid, some 40 hostages were left dead.³¹

29. Adam Dolnik and Richard Pilch, “The Moscow theater hostage crisis: the perpetrators, their tactics, and the Russian response”, International Negotiation, vol. 8, No. 3 (2003), p. 585. ↩
30. Ughetta Moscardino and others “Narratives from caregivers of children surviving the terrorist attack in Beslan: issues of health, culture, and resilience”, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 64, No. 8 (2007), pp. 1776–1787. ↩
31. Michael J. Ard, “Intelligence warning in the corporate sector: the 2013 In Amenas terrorist attack in retrospect”, Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, vol. 19, No. 4 (2024), p. 441. ↩

Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups, as part of their lethal attack of 7 October 2023, abducted 251 people inside Israel, taking them to the Gaza Strip. At the time of writing, 100 hostages, including two infant children, women and older persons, remained unaccounted for. The Special Rapporteur is on record repeatedly calling for their immediate and unconditional release.³² She has also called for accountability for all international crimes committed by Hamas and other armed groups and Israel in the context of the war in Gaza.³³ The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel has reported that abductions by Hamas are war crimes. The Commission noted that, in most cases, there have also been outrages upon personal dignity and inhumane treatment, as well as sexual and gender-based violence.³⁴ The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights found that the holding of hostages under the current conditions in Gaza, including underground for months, might amount to the war crime of torture or other ill-treatment.³⁵ The Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict documented “clear and convincing information”, based on first-hand accounts of released hostages, of rape and sexualized torture against female hostages.³⁶

32. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/09/un-torture-expert-calls-immediate-release-israeli-hostages-after-meeting; and https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/01/un-experts-demand-accountability-victims-sexual-torture-and-unlawful. ↩
33. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/05/israel-un-expert-calls-probe-allegations-torture-and-mistreatment-against; https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/03/un-experts-urge-international-community-step-pressure-end-crimes-uphold; https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/08/special-rapporteur-torture-appalled-allegation-sexual-torture-israeli; https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/un-experts-call-full-and-independent-investigations-all-crimes-committed; and https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/israeloccupied-palestinian-territory-un-experts-deplore-attacks-civilians. ↩
34. See A/79/232. ↩
35. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), “Thematic report: detention in the context of the escalation of hostilities in Gaza (October 2023–June 2024)”, 31 July 2024. ↩
36. United Nations, Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, “Mission report: official visit of the Office of the Special Representative to Israel and the occupied West Bank, 29 January–14 February 2024”, 4 March 2024. ↩

State hostage-taking has been increasing over the past decade.³⁷ Certain States are increasingly detaining foreign nationals under fabricated or exaggerated charges to serve foreign policy or other objectives. By manipulating justice systems and exploiting procedural mechanisms, these States prolong and complicate release while denying the detainees’ status as hostages or wrongful detainees. These cases have included severe physical and psychological torture.³⁸

37. Submissions of the Foley Foundation, Daniella Gilbert, Daren Nair, Protect Humanitarians, REDRESS and the Soufan Centre. ↩
38. Submission of International Human Rights Advisors. ↩

Foreign nationals have allegedly been arbitrarily detained with the purpose of using them for financial, political or other forms of leverage by China,³⁹ the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,⁴⁰ Iran (Islamic Republic of),⁴¹ Myanmar,⁴² the Russian Federation,⁴³ the United Arab Emirates⁴⁴ and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).⁴⁵ At least 66 cases of State hostage-taking in the Islamic Republic of Iran have been reported since 2010.⁴⁶ Journalists, aid workers, academics, business travellers and human rights defenders are especially vulnerable.⁴⁷ Dual nationals are often specifically targeted, and, in some cases, those individuals have been denied consular assistance from their other country of nationality.

39. See the cases of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor; and submission of Michael Kovrig. ↩
40. Submissions of REDRESS, Michael Kovrig, the Human Rights Advisory Group and Secure Canada, and the Soufan Centre. ↩
41. For example, the cases of Olivier Vandecasteele, Ana Diamond, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, Anoosheh Ashoori and Emad Shargi; and submissions of the Soufan Centre, Anoosheh Ashoori and Ana Diamond. See also A/HRC/WGAD/2016/28, A/HRC/WGAD/2021/85 and A/HRC/WGAD/2023/37. ↩
42. Submissions of DIGNITY and Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Myanmar). ↩
43. For example, the case of Evan Gershkovich; and submissions of the Memorial Human Rights Defence Centre, the New Dissidents Foundation and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. ↩
44. See cases of Ryan Cornelius (national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and Zack Shahin (national of the United States), who were detained in the United Arab Emirates and have remained in prison since 2008, reportedly to advance State commercial and political interests; and submission of International Human Rights Advisors. ↩
45. Submissions of Edgar Jose Marval Moreno and Jose Pereira. ↩
46. Carla Ferstman and Marina Sharpe, “Iran’s arbitrary detention of foreign and dual nationals as hostage-taking and crimes against humanity”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 20, No. 2 (May 2022), p. 403. ↩
47. Submissions of the Soufan Centre and Protect Humanitarians. ↩

State hostage-taking during armed conflict is also occurring. The Russian Federation is reportedly holding more than 15,000 Ukrainian civilians hostage, as a means of applying political and psychological pressure on Ukraine⁴⁸ and to intimidate occupied populations.⁴⁹ The abduction of Ukrainian children to the Russian Federation, which is the subject of International Criminal Court arrest warrants, may also qualify as hostage-taking, in addition to the alleged crimes of unlawful transfer and deportation.⁵⁰ In its resolution 78/221 on the situation of human rights in Crimea, the General Assembly called out the arbitrary detention and holding of civilian hostages by the Russian Federation.⁵¹ In Chechnya, the relatives of bloggers who live abroad have been reportedly abducted to exert pressure on them to provide information about the bloggers’ whereabouts;⁵² similar practices are reported in Myanmar.⁵³

48. Submissions of Ukraine. ↩
49. Submissions of the Association of Reintegration of Crimea and the Maat for Peace, Development and Human Rights Association. ↩
50. See https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and. ↩
51. Submission of the Association of Reintegration of Crimea. ↩
52. Submission of Crew against Torture. ↩
53. Submission of DIGNITY and the Assistance Association of Political Prisoners (Myanmar). ↩

At the international level, a new initiative to address wrongful detentions was launched by Canada in 2021.⁵⁴ The Declaration against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations aims to increase international solidarity against the use of judicial systems to arbitrarily arrest, detain and sentence persons for the purpose of leverage. The Declaration has secured the endorsement of 79 States so far. In January 2024, Canada established the Independent International Panel on Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations, which is due to report in June 2025. It will provide an analysis of the international framework, identify gaps and develop recommendations to strengthen the norms related to hostage diplomacy.⁵⁵ The Special Rapporteur welcomes this initiative and hopes the present report will help inform that process.

54. Submission of Canada. ↩
55. See https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-droits_homme/arbitrary_detention-detention_arbitraire.aspx?lang=eng. ↩

The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages has been widely relied upon as providing the general international legal definition of “hostage-taking”. Article 1 provides a definition for the offence of hostage-taking – as well as the separate offences of attempting and aiding hostage-taking – as follows:
Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the “hostage”) 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.

Absent a definition of hostage-taking in international humanitarian law or international criminal law, it is widely agreed that the above definition – containing three elements – is the applicable one for all purposes.⁵⁶

56. See ICRC, Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention: Convention III relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Cambridge University Press, 2021), commentary on common article 3; and Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law: Volume I – Rules (Cambridge, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Cambridge University Press, 2005), rule 96. ↩

The Convention was proposed and negotiated in response to a proliferation of hostage-taking in the 1970s, perpetrated predominantly by non-State actors. There was an urgent need to develop international cooperation in devising and adopting effective measures for preventing, prosecuting and punishing all acts of hostage-taking as international terrorism.⁵⁷ Other relevant international instruments concerned with addressing international terrorism that may involve hostage-taking include those on the hijacking of an aircraft⁵⁸ or the kidnapping of certain categories of persons (such as State officials or officials of international organizations or diplomats);⁵⁹ however, those instruments do not deal with the act of hostage-taking itself.

57. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, preamble. See Ben Saul, “Introductory note: International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, New York, 17 December 1979” (United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, 2014), available at https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/icath/icath.html. ↩
58. See Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation. ↩
59. See Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents. ↩

The Convention obligates its 176 States parties to enact laws to criminalize, investigate, prosecute or extradite (aut dedere aut judicare), and punish hostage-taking, take measures to ease the situation of the hostages and secure their release, and cooperate in the prevention of hostage-taking.⁶⁰

60. International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, in particular articles 1 (2), 2, 3 and 4. ↩

The Convention does not apply to hostage-taking in armed conflict.⁶¹ Nor does it apply where the offence is committed within a single State, the hostage and the alleged offender are nationals of that State and the alleged offender is found in the territory of that State.⁶² For the Convention to apply, there must be a transnational element to the offence.

61. Ibid., art. 12. ↩
62. Ibid., art. 13. ↩

While there may be some disagreement as to whether the Convention is applicable to State hostage-taking,⁶³ the Special Rapporteur takes the position that it applies. The definition in the Convention does not distinguish between State and non-State perpetrators. Rather it requires States parties to prosecute “any person” who engages in such crimes. No exception for State agents can be implied from this wording.⁶⁴

63. Submission of Danielle Gilbert. ↩
64. This is also the position of Joseph J. Lambert, Terrorism and Hostages in International Law: A Commentary on the Hostages Convention 1979 (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Grotius Publications, 1990), pp. 79 and 80; and Carla Ferstman, Conceptualising Arbitrary Detention: Power, Punishment and Control (Bristol, Bristol University Press, 2024), p. 227. ↩

The International Court of Justice has provided clarity on the obligations of States in situations where the initial hostage-taking was carried out by non-State perpetrators: “Once organs of the Iranian State had thus given approval to the acts complained of and decided to perpetuate them as a means of pressure on the United States, those acts were transformed into acts of the Iranian State: the militants became agents of that State, which itself became internationally responsible for their acts.”⁶⁵ The Court found that the Islamic Republic of Iran was bound to secure the immediate release of the hostages, to restore the Embassy premises and to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States Government.

65. International Court of Justice, Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment, 24 May 1980, Summary of the Judgment, p. 108 (corresponding to para. 74 of the Judgment). ↩

The International Court of Justice in its provisional orders in South Africa v. Israel ordered that: “The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.”⁶⁶

66. International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Order, 26 January 2024, para. 85; reiterated in para. 50 of the Court’s Order of 28 March 2024. ↩

The Security Council has been seized of the matter of hostage-taking on multiple occasions. The Council has condemned unequivocally all acts of hostage-taking and abduction, demanded the immediate safe release of all hostages and abducted persons, wherever and by whomever they are being held, and called upon all States to use their political influence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law to secure the safe release of all hostages and abducted persons and to prevent the commission of acts of hostage-taking and abduction.⁶⁷ The Commission on the Status of Women has also adopted resolutions calling for the release of female and child hostages.⁶⁸

67. See Security Council resolutions 579 (1985) and 638 (1989) on hostage-taking; 618 (1988) concerning hostage-taking of a military observer as part of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon; 687 (1991) concerning the invasion by Iraq of Kuwait and the taking of hostages; 2735 (2024) on ending the war in Gaza and securing the release of hostages; and 2730 (2024) on protection of humanitarian personnel, including against arbitrary detention. ↩
68. Submission of Azerbaijan. The most recent resolution of the Commission on this topic is 66/2. ↩

Hostage-taking has been prohibited under international humanitarian law since Nuremberg⁶⁹ and was completely outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.⁷⁰ The two Additional Protocols reaffirmed this categorical prohibition, and the prohibition is now considered part of customary international law.⁷¹ The Additional Protocols confirm that hostage-taking is absolutely prohibited “at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or military agents”.⁷² There is no difference between hostage-taking in international armed conflicts and hostage-taking in armed conflicts that are not international conflicts.⁷³

69. United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, United States v. Wilhelm List et al. (The Hostages Case), Judgment, 19 February 1948. Prior to the Second World War, the taking of hostages was still considered lawful, albeit under very strict conditions; see ICRC, Commentary, para. 682. ↩
70. See Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, rule 96; articles 34 and 147 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention); article 75 (2) (c) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I); common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949; article 4 (2) (c) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II); and article 8 (2) (a) (viii) and (c) (iii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. ↩
71. ICRC, Commentary, para. 682. ↩
72. Article 75 (2) (c) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. ↩
73. ICRC, Commentary, para. 685. ↩

The key element that distinguishes hostage-taking from other abductions or kidnappings is that the perpetrators intend to obtain a concession or gain an advantage.⁷⁴ The requisite intent to take hostages need not be present at the outset of their detention. The intent can develop during the detention to secure a compromise or benefit.⁷⁵ Intention may be derived from the wider context and circumstances surrounding the detention.⁷⁶

74. International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 3 March 2000, para. 158. ↩
75. International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 24 March 2016, para. 468; see also ICRC, Commentary, paras. 689 and 690. ↩
76. European Court of Human Rights, Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (No. 2), Application No. 14305/17, Judgment, 22 December 2020, paras. 436 and 437; and Special Court for Sierra Leone, Prosecutor v. Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao, Case No. SCSL-04-15-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment, 26 October 2009, para. 580. ↩

Individuals do not need to be detained unlawfully or arbitrarily to be considered hostages. On the contrary, persons whose detention may be lawful, such as in the case of persons posing a security threat or prisoners of war, could later be used as hostages to compel a third party to act.

Although the prohibition of hostage-taking is typically associated with the holding of civilians as hostages, the offence can also be applied to the taking of soldiers.⁷⁷ Where State or non-State actors resort to the abduction of soldiers, with a view to improving their exchange of prisoners or other demands, this too is prohibited.

77. Third Geneva Convention, art. 3; Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, rule 96; and Prosecutor v. Karadžić, para. 468. See also A/79/232, para. 111. ↩

Hostage-taking is not explicitly listed as one of the covered acts to be considered a crime against humanity in the Rome Statute or in international humanitarian law; however, it is the view of the Special Rapporteur that the harms inherent in hostage-taking – most notably torture –render it a crime against humanity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population with knowledge of the attack. The Trial Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia agreed with this analysis, when it found Tihomir Blaškić guilty of “inhuman or cruel treatment of civilians and, in particular, their being taken hostage” as a crime against humanity.⁷⁹ That being said, the Special Rapporteur would encourage the explicit incorporation of hostage-taking in the draft articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.

79. Prosecutor v. Blaškić, p. 267. Even though his conviction on this point was overturned on appeal, the legal point remains valid. ↩

or systematic attack against a civilian population with knowledge of the attack. The Trial Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia agreed with this analysis, when it found Tihomir Blaškić guilty of “inhuman or cruel treatment of civilians and, in particular, their being taken hostage” as a crime against humanity.78 That being said, the Special Rapporteur would encourage the explicit incorporation of hostage-taking in the draft articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.

At present, there is no established jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court on hostage-taking, although two cases are pending before the Court relating to hostage-taking, namely, the Situation in Georgia case,⁷⁹ and the warrant for arrest of Hamas’ leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (and potential future warrants), which included hostage-taking as a war crime in respect of the attacks of 7 October 2023.⁸⁰

79. Case No. ICC-01/15. ↩
80. See https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-warrant-arrest-mohammed-diab-ibrahim. ↩

A relevant obligation of detaining States is to advise detained foreigners of their right to contact a representative from their embassy and to notify the State of nationality of their detention,⁸¹ not least because consular assistance is a necessary precondition towards securing the detainee’s inalienable right to legal counsel and due process. On the other hand, while diplomatic protection is not considered obligatory, such that States cannot be compelled to intervene on behalf of their own nationals, article 19 of the International Law Commission’s articles on diplomatic protection stipulates that a State entitled to exercise diplomatic protection “should … give due consideration to the possibility of exercising diplomatic protection, especially when a significant injury has occurred”.⁸² Under international humanitarian law, the Special Rapporteur reminds all parties that the obligation to allow access to ICRC to visit all detainees, including hostages, must be respected.⁸³

81. See International Court of Justice, Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 12. ↩
82. A/61/10, pp. 94–100. See Alice Edwards, “The meaning of nationality in international law in an era of human rights”, in Nationality and Statelessness in International Law, Alice Edwards and Laura van Waas, eds. (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 35. ↩
83. See https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/access. ↩

As part of the torment, hostages may be forced to make recordings. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that forced filming of hostages constitutes inhuman treatment.⁸⁴ Similarly, exposing prisoners of war and other war detainees to public curiosity is a war crime. Even if prisoners of war appear to make voluntary public statements or willingly participate in the recording of images, disclosure to the public remains unlawful.⁸⁵

84. Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, Judgment, 27 November 2003, para. 85. ↩
85. See Ramin Mahnad, “Shielding prisoners of war from public curiosity”, ICRC, Humanitarian Law and Policy, 28 June 2022. ↩

Hostage-taking overlaps with other international human rights issues, such as enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention. The Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances has noted that a situation of hostage-taking would also constitute an enforced disappearance where the fate and whereabout of loved ones is kept from family members.⁸⁶ The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has assumed jurisdiction over many cases of arbitrary deprivation of liberty that are tantamount to or involve hostage-taking, and has noted that it causes “terrible loss in lives and human dignity and endless pain”.⁸⁷ Classifying hostage-taking as arbitrary detention however often fails to give due regard to the intentional nature of the practice, the severe suffering it engenders and the leverage component.⁸⁸

86. See article 24 (1) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; and A/HRC/WGEID/1, para. 9. See also submission of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. ↩
87. E/CN.4/2005/6, para. 66. ↩
88. Submission of REDRESS. ↩

The issue of hostage release is not regulated by international law, owing to the prohibition on hostage-taking.

Torture is an erga omnes and jus cogens norm. It is absolutely prohibited at all times, including in war. Lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited under customary international law. Every State in the world has accepted obligations on torture and other ill-treatment, including through international humanitarian law and human rights law treaties.⁸⁹

89. See A/77/502, sect. IV. ↩

It is the view of the Special Rapporteur that hostage-taking inevitably entails forms of physical and mental torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The experience of being abducted – through assault or arrest – can be terrifying. It is often completely unexpected and is always disorienting. Hostage-takers have not spared children, pregnant women, persons with serious medical conditions or disabilities, or the elderly. A released Israeli female hostage, who was seized on 7 October 2023, described to the Special Rapporteur that within minutes in Gaza she was surrounded by people yelling and cheering, as she was beaten with sticks.

Abduction is often accompanied by violence, against the hostage or around the hostage, especially during war or armed assaults. Hostages experience constant fear of violence and death, realizing that the perpetrators are not constrained by the law. Without deterrents, hostages frequently experience physical or sexual violence. Beatings, torture (psychological and physical), mock executions, blindfolding for long periods, starvation and sexual assault are common features of captivity.

Many former hostages have retold their stories and given evidence in courts, testifying about the physical suffering they experienced at the hands of their captors. Not all hostage-takers are equally violent or abusive, but the fear and threat of violence that all hostages face is a form of psychological torture. The simple act of depriving someone of their freedom and agency, even about when they can go to the toilet, causes suffering and humiliation which has long-term consequences.

In State-perpetrated hostage-taking, the sense of injustice and disbelief of the hostage is compounded by the broken expectation that the law will be adhered to. Most former hostages speak about an initial conviction that their detention was a mistake and will soon be resolved. When this does not happen, a sense of confusion and mental torment ensues. This is generally compounded by an absence of consular access.

Prolonged solitary confinement with no human interaction is a common experience. Everyone interviewed reported that solitary confinement was unbearable. Suicide attempts were also reported.

Many former hostages reported being denied medical treatment for potentially life-threatening medical conditions, such as breast cancer and heart conditions, and many attributed their later poor health to their conditions in captivity.

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee has recognized that “a typical hostage-taking incident generally threatens not only the physical but also the psychological well-being and integrity of the hostage both throughout and after the duration of the incident”.⁹⁰ The Committee noted that, typically, adults taken hostage have the following reactions:
(a) Cognitive: impaired memory and concentration; confusion and disorientation; intrusive thoughts and memories, denial (namely, that the event happened), hypervigilance and hyperarousal (a state of feeling too aroused, with a profound fear of another incident);
(b) Emotional: shock and numbness, fear and anxiety, helplessness and hopelessness, dissociation (feeling numb and “switched off” emotionally), anger (at anybody – perpetrators, themselves and the authorities), anhedonia (loss of pleasure in doing that which was previously pleasurable), depression (a reaction to loss) and guilt (for example, at having survived if others died, and for being taken hostage);
(c) Social: withdrawal, irritability, avoidance (of reminders of the event).⁹¹

90. A/HRC/24/47, para. 24, citing Ellen Giebels, Sigrid Noelanders and Geert Vervaeke, “The Hostage Experience: Implications for Negotiation Strategies”, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 241–253. ↩
91. Ibid., para. 26, citing David A. Alexander and Susan Klein, “Kidnapping and hostage-taking: a review of effects, coping and resilience”, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 102, No. 1, 2009, p. 18. ↩

These are also the symptoms experienced by survivors of torture. The Istanbul Protocol recounts that torture gives rise to physical and psychological trauma. For children, hostage-taking has a severe and sustained impact, with many displaying symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Hostages of all ages reported to the Special Rapporteur that they still suffered from psychological impacts, such as severe trauma, fear and anxiety, nightmares and insomnia, and physical impacts like severe heart conditions, serious foot injuries (from pacing in solitary confinement), and back and neck issues from sleeping on the floor or without bedding.

Hostage-taking has been described as consisting of concentric circles of psychological torture that extend far beyond the immediate victims, creating what may be termed a “cascading trauma effect”.⁹² The primary victims are the hostages themselves, who endure not only direct psychological and often physical torture but who also experience extreme powerlessness. Secondary victimization affects immediate family members. They become involuntary participants in a high-stakes negotiation process. They have the burden of navigating complex diplomatic channels, while maintaining public attention for their loved ones. They often experience severe financial strains and emotional exhaustion as their primary focus becomes securing the release of their loved ones. There are frequent moral dilemmas as they balance calling for potentially costly concessions. Many experience profound grief in anticipation of a bad outcome, while they simultaneously maintain hope for a positive outcome. This creates a state of persistent psychological tension.⁹³

92. Submission of Hostage Aid Israel. ↩
93. Ibid. ↩

Family members are also at the forefront of the minds of hostages. Many of those interviewed reported feeling extreme concern about what their family was going through. Perpetrators denied hostages phone calls and visits. If they were allowed to visit, family members were heavily surveilled and prisoners were told not to talk about their treatment. Hostages missed seeing their children grow up and spending time with their parents in their final years. One hostage reported that he was not permitted to go to the birth of his daughter. Others said that their interrogators threatened to harm their family members.

It is the Special Rapporteur’s position that, as with enforced disappearances,⁹⁴ the families of hostages can be victims of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention emphasizes respect for family rights and the unity of the family during armed conflict. With respect to children – either as the hostage or as the child of a family member held hostage – reference is made to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.⁹⁵ The taking of child hostages is a particularly egregious form of torture, which should incur higher penalties for those responsible.

94. See Bernard Duhaime, Juan E. Méndez and Pau Perez-Sales, “Current debates, developments and challenges regarding torture, enforced disappearances and human rights”, Torture Journal: Journal on Rehabilitation of Torture Victims and Prevention of Torture, vol. 31, No. 2 (2021), pp. 3–13. ↩
95. See articles 9, 10, 18, 19 and 37–39. ↩

In mass hostage-taking events, there may also be a tertiary impact, in which trauma and fear extends to broader society as “collective moral trauma”.⁹⁶ Even in individual hostage-taking events, whole communities or countries may be affected by the taking of an individual. They may rally support and protest on the streets, people may see themselves in the victim and realize that it could easily have been them. The hostage-taking of journalists and human rights defenders can have a chilling effect that discourages others from pursuing the truth. Bargaining for the release of hostages also aggravates psychological impacts, including by the actors deeming certain hostages “lower value” to be used as leverage for “higher value” individuals.⁹⁷

96. Submission of Hostages Aid Israel. ↩
97. Submission of REDRESS. ↩

How survivors and their families are treated during and after being taken hostage can impact their recovery in significant ways. Many survivors and their families reported that they did not feel supported by their Governments during detention and after release.⁹⁸ Governments told the Special Rapporteur that they were not equipped with the expertise or experience to accompany survivors through the process of recovery successfully. Given the profound psychological, physical and economic consequences for hostages and their families, States must provide comprehensive support. The services of private and non-governmental entities can supplement the State services.

98. Submission of the Soufan Centre. ↩

Much can be learned from the rehabilitation provided to survivors of torture, which is an obligation of States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Article 14 provides that States shall ensure that torture victims obtain redress, which includes the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires States parties to take measures to promote the recovery and reintegration of child victims of exploitation, neglect or abuse. The Special Rapporteur also reminds States of the need to recognize the status of children as victims and provide restitution and repair that is child-centric and child-appropriate, as detailed in the Guidelines on Justice in Matters Involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime.

The Committee against Torture has commented that the obligation to provide rehabilitation applies to victims who were subjected to torture or ill-treatment outside a State’s territory.⁹⁹ The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that the State obligation to provide rehabilitation also extends to affected family members of hostages, who are also victims.

99. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 3 (2012), para. 22. ↩

The rehabilitation services offered by States must be available, accessible and appropriate to the victims.¹⁰⁰ They should be tailored to the specific needs of each victim and should be holistic – providing medical (including sexual and reproductive) and psychological care, as well as legal and social services.

100. Convention against Torture Initiative and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, “Providing rehabilitation to victims of torture and other ill-treatment”, UNCAT Implementation Tool 5/2018 (2018). ↩

There are two phases to the support – during captivity and after release. Former hostages often endure long-term trauma, sometimes seeking therapy decades after their release. Many also face ongoing torment from a sense of injustice, as most hostage-takers are never held accountable.¹⁰¹ Their families undergo a different experience, but also suffer long-lasting effects.

101. Submission of Hostage International. ↩

Most people, apart from trained military personnel, rarely consider the possibility of losing their freedom or contact with the outside world in daily life. Even civilians aware of kidnapping risks in countries that they visit often feel disbelief. This trauma begins the moment an abduction or detention occurs, regardless of the duration of captivity.¹⁰²

102. Ibid. ↩

During captivity, victims endure constant fear, uncertainty and helplessness. The unpredictability of their captors’ behaviour, coupled with the threat of violence, creates an environment of chronic stress resulting in long-term mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and sleep disturbances.¹⁰³ A female survivor interviewed said that she was worried about the sexual diseases she might have contracted while being held against her will.

103. Submission of Hostage US. ↩

The Special Rapporteur has repeatedly heard from survivors and families about the importance of having effective support, communication and information from their home State. Hostages in State hostage-taking situations describe feeling abandoned by their Governments when consular services are denied. When access is allowed, some survivors say government representatives are untrained or unable to provide the support they need. For non-State hostage-taking, victims have even less information about their Government’s actions. A sense of being abandoned by their Government, sometimes manipulated by the hostage-takers as form of psychological torture, adds to the powerlessness of hostages.

Family members experience severe psychological trauma, including chronic anxiety, depression and isolation, often exacerbated by demands by their Governments not to speak publicly. Sleepless nights, worry for their loved one’s safety and guilt over their inability to help, intensify their emotional burden. Some focus all their efforts and attention on the task of having their loved one returned, which causes other areas of their lives to be neglected, including work. Family members require support from their Governments to navigate the impacts on their lives, such as legal issues and interacting with the media. They should also receive clear communication and regular updates about what is happening.¹⁰⁴

104. Submissions of Hostage International; Hostage US; Hostage and Missing Families Forum and the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists; and October 7 Justice Without Borders. ↩

There may be a state of “ambiguous loss” for families.¹⁰⁵ For example, relatives of the hostages taken by Hamas have not received official proof of life, or been able to send messages of contact, or been given any indication of the hostages’ welfare or condition.¹⁰⁶ In addition, Hamas has released videos of hostages that torment family members by, for example, asking them to guess which hostage has been killed.¹⁰⁷ Bodies of the dead are also used as leverage, preventing families from burying their loved ones.¹⁰⁸ The Special Rapporteur’s position is that, just as in the cases of enforced disappearance, the right to know the truth about the fate and whereabouts of hostages includes the right of the family to have the remains of their loved ones returned to them. The concealment, destruction or violation of the bodies of victims may infringe on the rights of family members to be free from torture and ill-treatment.¹⁰⁹

105. Submissions of Hostage and Missing Families Forum and the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists; and Olivier Vandecasteele. ↩
106. Submission of Adam Rose and Adam Wagner. ↩
107. Ibid. ↩
108. Ibid. ↩
109. A/HRC/56/56, para. 61. ↩

A specific government office that handles hostage-taking situations and provides a single point of contact for victims and their families is fundamental. The United States has a Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, whose office supports families throughout the process.¹¹⁰ In November 2023, Canada designated a Senior Official for Hostage Affairs to lead the country’s concerted consular efforts and to enhance its capacity to respond to cases of hostage-taking.¹¹¹ In Australia, a senate committee inquiry recently recommended that the Government create a special envoy’s office to increase and coordinate support to victims and families.¹¹² However, too few States are ready and able to assist hostages and their families navigate this stressful and complicated process. The Special Rapporteur would encourage greater sharing of experiences across countries, with the full involvement of former hostages.

110. Submission of the Soufan Center. ↩
111. Submission of Canada. ↩
112. Parliament of Australia, Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Wrongful Detention of Australian Citizens Overseas (Canberra, 2024). ↩

The psychological impact of captivity can persist long after release. Many former captives report initially feeling disoriented. They may struggle with concentration and decision-making, finding even simple decisions difficult to make due to a prolonged loss of agency. Deprived of cognitive engagement during captivity, their mental faculties often require time to recover.¹¹³

113. Submission of Hostage US. ↩

Community stigma can worsen the ordeal for families of hostages or people detained wrongfully. In politically or criminally motivated abductions, families may face suspicion or blame, leading to social ostracism and reduced access to vital support networks.¹¹⁴ The Special Rapporteur encourages Governments to counteract “victim blaming” by formally recognizing hostages.¹¹⁵

114. Ibid. ↩
115. Submission of Olivier Vandecasteele. ↩

Legal clarification of the status of family members and dependants as “victims” entitled to access support is elementary.¹¹⁶ Peer support networks to connect people with others who have experienced similar ordeals may reduce isolation and provide a sense of community and mutual support.¹¹⁷ In Israel, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum exemplifies the mobilization of secondary victims, who have become full-time advocates on the international stage.¹¹⁸ In Spain, various crimes associated with hostage-taking are prosecutable.¹¹⁹

116. Submission of Adam Rose and Adam Wagner. ↩
117. Submission of Olivier Vandecasteele. ↩
118. Submission of Hostage Aid Israel. ↩
119. Submission of Spain. ↩

Reintegration assistance should include the debriefing by Governments of returnees and their families concerning how their case was resolved, taking into account that some elements may remain confidential.¹²⁰ It should include post-release healthcare and dental care.¹²¹ There should be access to long-term psychological care to deal with the complex and enduring trauma.¹²² Former hostages should be supported in their return to work, which may require educating employers about their experience.¹²³

120. Submission of Hostage International. ↩
121. Submission of the Soufan Centre. ↩
122. Submission of Hostage Aide Worldwide. ↩
123. Submission of the Soufan Centre. ↩

The economic consequences for released hostages and their families should not be underestimated, and economic planning should be part of recovery packages. Employers also have an important role to play by ensuring that salaries and benefits are kept during captivity, as many reported that their absence had left families unable to pay bills.¹²⁴ One hostage unable to work upon return reported to the Special Rapporteur that his employer had provided a generous severance package that had allowed him to retire and obtain medical support for his trauma. Families may have to pay money or put up bail to get their loved ones released. Financial repercussions from captivity, such as negative impacts to financial scores and penalties for unpaid taxes can be addressed legislatively.¹²⁵

124. Submission of Hostage US ↩
125. Submission of the Soufan Centre. ↩

On top of the financial pressure, former captives report serious impacts on their careers, as they find their skill sets and knowledge are out of date. One released detainee reported that in the many years he was detained, technology had moved on to such an extent that he was no longer able to continue in his profession. Another former hostage interviewed shared that when he returned to work, his employer did not know what to do with him, at a time when he desperately needed to keep busy. They put him in the worst place – the basement of the building – and he spent his days sending emails to himself.¹²⁶

126. Convention against Torture Initiative and True Heroes Films, “Rehabilitation for victims of torture: restoring their humanity”, video featuring Vincent Cochetel, who was detained by Chechens for 317 days and held in near total darkness, while working for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, available at https://cti2024.org/resources-for-states/cti-videos-and-short-films/. ↩

Meaningful work and activities build a sense of identity, which may be lost in captivity and in years away from normal social relations. This shift can amplify feelings of inadequacy and dependence, worsening the psychological burden.¹²⁷ The socioeconomic repercussions can also have intergenerational effects, with financial instability and trauma affecting whole families.¹²⁸

127. Submission of Hostage US. ↩
128. Ibid. ↩

There are examples of good practices of States fulfilling their obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In Morocco, article 14 is reflected in law, guaranteeing victims of torture full reparation for harm caused, including bodily, material or moral injury.¹²⁹ Such laws prioritize victims and ensure that they are treated with respect and accommodated in a supportive environment and that attention is paid to their suffering.

129. Submission of Morocco. ↩

Ukraine has a law that assists individuals released from captivity.¹³⁰ Survivors are provided with clothing and a mobile phone, monetary assistance, medical and psychological rehabilitation, legal protection, restorative measures, important documentation, such as a passport, temporary housing and employment assistance. Ukraine has also established a coordination centre to assist survivors in criminal proceedings.¹³¹

130. Law No. 2010-IX of 26 January 2022 on social and legal protection of individuals deprived of personal freedom as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine and their family members. ↩
131. Submission of Ukraine. ↩

The Hostage, Missing Persons and Returnees Administration of Israel provides comprehensive and tailored support to returned hostages and their families that addresses medical, psychological, social and legal needs.¹³² Various laws have been enacted to ensure these services and financial support.¹³³ Family members of unreleased hostages are provided with monthly stipends. Returned hostages are entitled to stipends for life, disability allowances, medical treatments and wage compensation while in captivity. Upon release, hostages undergo a medical evaluation, with protocols that emphasize sensitivity, agency and the documentation of physical findings that may indicate war crimes. Specialized care is provided for children and young women, with protocols tailored to their specific needs and preferences. Family members are entitled to financial grants.

132. Submission of Israel. ↩
133. Israel, Compensation Law for Family Members of Missing or Abducted in Hostilities or War, 57742023; Payments to Rescued Hostages Law, 5765-2005; National Insurance Law (consolidated version), 5755-1995; and government resolution No. 2185 (5 September 2024). ↩

The rise in the number of incidents of State hostage-taking, particularly by a small group of repeat offenders, alongside the continued prevalence of non-State hostage-taking, demand collective international attention. Research for the present report has consistently highlighted the severe psychological and physical harm suffered by hostages. These traumatic events also leave a lasting impact on their families, their communities and, in some extreme cases, entire nations. The international community must condemn all forms of hostage-taking, work individually and collectively to prevent them and fully implement the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages and obligations to prohibit, prevent and address torture and other ill-treatment, wherever and by whomever it is perpetrated.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States:
(a) Criminalize all forms of hostage-taking and align international obligations to prohibit, prevent and respond to all situations of hostage-taking under the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and other applicable anti-torture legal instruments;
(b) Recognize that hostage-taking involves forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and pursue concrete actions to prevent, investigate and respond in all cases;
(c) Acknowledge that hostage-taking impacts hostages, their family members and society. A response should address these three areas of impact;
(d) Permit access to all places where individuals are held hostage or deprived of their liberty, to independent monitors, including the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and ICRC;
(e) As hostage-taking presents a threat to international peace and security, share good practices, coordinate responses to hostage-taking and unify and clarify terminology. In particular, recognize that arbitrary detention for leverage is hostage-taking;
(f) Endorse the Declaration against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations;
(g) Establish the institutional capacity to respond quickly and strategically to individual or mass State and non-State hostage taking;
(h) Formulate early-warning systems to detect patterns indicative of State or non-State hostage-taking;
(i) Establish a national specialized office or envoy of appropriate seniority on hostage-taking that supports victims and families. This office should have specifically trained staff, rather than regular consular staff, who visit hostages. The obligation to visit should be mandated rather than discretionary. All efforts should be made to ensure that hostages are kept informed and have their physical and mental health evaluated. They should have communications with the outside world. Family members should be treated with respect and as part of the process rather than being held at arm’s length. Hostages and their families should receive a debriefing upon release that provides them with clarity on non-confidential measures that were taken to secure release;
(j) Recognize that both hostages and their family members constitute victims who are entitled to effective reparation, rehabilitation and support;
(k) Establish available, accessible and appropriate support systems to assist hostages and their families that address the psychological, physical and economic consequences of being taken hostage (and in cases of sexual torture, reproductive and other specialized support). For hostages, such support should start as soon as possible after release and last as long as needed, and at times may start during detention in situations where access is granted to detainees. For families, such support should be provided throughout the ordeal. This should include enacting laws and regulations that specify financial and other support. The support should be monitored and ongoing for as long as it is needed;
(l) Adopt the guidelines for adequate consular assistance offered by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in respect of a different subject matter applicable mutatis mutandis to the context of hostage-taking;¹³⁴
(m) Raise awareness and educate the public about risks and combat victim blaming in society;
(n) Hold State and non-State perpetrators accountable by utilizing all available avenues, including domestic courts, universal jurisdiction and targeted sanctions, such as Magnitsky sanctions, against individuals responsible for hostage-taking and associated acts of torture;
(o) Incorporate hostage-taking as an explicit offence in the draft articles on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.

134. A/74/318. ↩

With respect to entities and bodies of the United Nations, the Special Rapporteur urges:
(a) The Security Council to reinvigorate the past practice of adopting a general resolution on hostage-taking and to take up individual and collective situations of hostage-taking more actively and consistently;
(b) The Secretary-General to appoint a special representative on hostage-taking, whose responsibilities would include being the chief negotiator within the United Nations system and on behalf of the Secretary-General to assist parties to secure the release of hostages, represent the interests of hostages and their families, intervene on their behalf with Governments and non-State actors and facilitate a rapid response, including with the engagement of States when hostage-taking is suspected. The special representative should have the authority to have immediate access to detainees and all places where hostages are suspected of being held, and should report annually on the global situation of State and non-State hostage-taking to the General Assembly and the Security Council;
(c) The General Assembly and/or the Human Rights Council to dedicate periodic sessions to hostage-taking and to adopt specific thematic resolutions on hostage-taking, or the Human Rights Council to dedicate its next resolution on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to hostage-taking and the General Assembly to incorporate language and standards regarding hostage-taking into the omnibus resolution on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(d) The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to consider adopting a deliberation on hostage-taking and deprivation of liberty and, together with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, to continue the positive collaboration with the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other relevant mandate holders on these important cases;
(e) The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and other international courts and tribunals that may be established, to pursue investigations into and prosecutions of hostage-taking and torture and other ill-treatment;
(f) The Committee against Torture and other human rights treaty bodies to consider adopting general comments on the topic and to request information from States for their periodic reviews, and States parties to report on their obligations to prevent and prohibit hostage-taking.

A United Nations fund to support hostages could also be considered, funded in part by confiscations of financial assets and property imposed by sanctions.

The Special Rapporteur urges non-State actors:
(a) To release all hostages unconditionally and immediately and reminds them that people should never be bargaining chips in negotiations. Hostage-taking is an affront to our shared humanity and any organization wishing to join the international community must act in full observance of human rights;
(b) To recall that hostage-taking is an international crime and constitutes torture, which is absolutely prohibited in all circumstances and without immunity or amnesty;
(c) To permit ICRC and other monitoring bodies and mandate holders, including the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to have direct and unimpeded access to all hostages;
(d) To provide proof of life and information about the whereabouts and condition of hostages in a dignified and secure manner to the State and families, including about those who are deceased; and to return bodies promptly and in a dignified manner.