dilution of human rights protections has the potential to encourage other states – from newly established or fragile democracies, where the OSCE is frequently assisting democratic development, to autocratic regimes – in justifying the use of torture on the basis, for example, of security concerns or terrorist threats, whether real or artificially created, as well as providing a rallying call for recruitment to terrorism. It is recognized that states have a duty to protect their citizens through the investigation, prosecution and punishment of those who commit acts of terrorism, and to prevent terrorism by taking appropriate measures. This duty must, however, be carried out within the framework of international human rights law in order to be effective. It is thus a key aspect for torture prevention within the OSCE area that both political and international legal commitments relating to torture continue to be given the highest respect and to be implemented fully in all OSCE participating States, including in the context of counter-terrorism initiatives. This will ultimately strengthen and support the work carried out by OSCE field operations as described in this paper. Saadi v Italy 21 In 2008 the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed the absolute and unconditional nature of the long standing principle against deporting people to countries where there is a “real risk” they will be subject to torture or treatment. The Court stated that no circumstances, including national security concerns and terrorist threats would justify such action. This case concerned a Tunisian citizen resident in Italy whom the Italian government wanted to deport to Tunisia on the basis that he was a terrorist threat. He had been convicted in Tunisia of terrorism-related offences and claimed he would be at risk of torture and ill-treatment if deported there. It had been argued that in the case of terrorist suspects, their right to be protected from torture or ill-treatment in a country should be balanced against the risk to national security that they pose in the country which wants to deport them. This argument was rejected unequivocally by the Court, which recognized that: “States face immense difficulties in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence. The Court cannot therefore underestimate the scale of the danger of terrorism today and the threat it presents to the community. That must not, however, call into question the absolute nature of Article 3 [of the European Convention, which prohibits torture and other ill-treatment].” 21 Saadi v Italy (App no 37201/06), Judgement of 28 February 2008, <http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=829510&portal=hbkm&sourc e=externalbydocnumber&table= > 31