The obligation on states to take all necessary and feasible measures to combat FTF threats effectively, as set down in binding Chapter VII UNSC resolutions referred to above, are reflected in human rights law itself. The positive obligation on states to protect individuals within their jurisdiction from terrorist attacks, or from falling victim in various ways to organizations such as ISIL, requires that states take all feasible measures to prevent and to respond to terrorist acts.91 However, in doing so they must operate within the rule of law framework, which requires adherence to, inter alia, international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international refugee law. The need for an approach compliant with international human rights and humanitarian law is made explicit in the UNSC resolutions, the UN’s Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, OSCE commitments and other regional initiatives, as noted above. The importance of a comprehensive approach to meeting the obligations to prevent and suppress terrorism, including FTF-related acts, is increasingly recognized at the national and international levels. As the 2015 Annual Report of the UN Working Group on mercenaries put it, the approach must be “global, holistic, multidimensional and strategic”.92 Prevention, prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration have been identified as the critical elements of such an approach, as reflected in UNSC Resolution 2178 (2014) and OSCE commitments. Rehabilitation has been described as “an important element of a pragmatic and reasonable response to the foreign fighter phenomenon [as] the basis for a long-term security approach”, particularly in light of the challenges and limitations of coercive approaches, which are highlighted below.93 However, notwithstanding the terms of resolutions and declarations, in practice far greater emphasis still appears to be placed on repressive and punitive approaches than on preventive or rehabilitative ones. The reports by the UN Working Group on mercenaries are among a number that call for states to respond to the threats and challenges posed by FTFs in a way that balances punitive measures and preventive ones, while 91  Media reports of recruits being treated as “slaves” and various forms of ill-treatment and sexual violence by the “Islamic State” towards some of their own recruits also point to the need to take action to prevent and counter both such “internal” abuse as well as the broader “external” terrorist threat those groups pose. As regards positive obligations to prevent acts of terrorism, see, for example, Tagayeva and Others v. Russia, ECtHR, 13 April 2017. 92  UN Working Group on mercenaries, UN Doc. A/70/330, op. cit., note 75. The Working Group also addressed the FTF issue in its country visits to Tunisia from 1 to 8 July 2015 (UN Doc. A/HRC/33/43/Add.1), Belgium from 12 to 16 October 2015 (UN Doc. A/HRC/33/43/Add.2), Ukraine from 14 to 18 March 2016 (UN Doc. A/HRC/33/43/ Add.3) and the European Union from 25 to 28 April 2016 (UN Doc. A/HRC/33/43/Add.4); in expert panels and meetings and in its Annual Report to the 71st session of the UN General Assembly (UN Doc. A/71/318). 93  E. Entenmann, L. van der Heide, D. Weggemans, J. Dorsey, “Rehabilitation for Foreign Fighters? Relevance, Challenges and Opportunities for the Criminal Justice Sector”, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, January 2016, <https://icct.nl/publication/rehabilitation-for-foreign-fighters-relevance-challenges-and-opportunities-for-the-criminal-justice-sector/>, (hereafter, E. Entenmann, L. van der Heide, D. Weggemans, J. Dorsey, “Rehabilitation for Foreign Fighters? Relevance, Challenges and Opportunities for the Criminal Justice Sector”). Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters” 29