introduce changes in ordinary law that may constitute permanent derogations from human rights obligations.102 • Restrictions of those rights that allow for limitations must be prescribed in law, be necessary and proportionate as well as non-discriminatory. For the most part, the rights most obviously affected by FTF provisions (such the right to privacy, freedom of expression and association or the right to manifest one’s religion) are qualified rights subject to restrictions, provided those restrictions meet strict requirements and are applied accordingly. They must be provided for by law, must not exceed necessary limitations, and must be minimized wherever possible and be proportionate to a legitimate aim. Particular care is needed to avoid rights being balanced against security threats in abstract terms. Limitations to rights must be justified by the necessity and proportionality of the particular measure, based on a specific risk assessment of the individual case and context. • Targeted case-by-case approach: The human rights law framework requires a targeted approach, and rejects “one size fits all” solutions. Blanket application of laws and policies may not only be less effective and efficient, but it also falls short of requirements in human rights law for approaches to risk assessment to be individualized and for there to be an analysis of the necessity and proportionality of the particular measure in question. In order to give effect to these obligations, the need for enhanced understanding of the “phenomenon”, its causes and contributors, and careful analysis of case and context specificity, has been broadly recognized and alluded to above.103 As noted above, this is underscored by analyses on the diverse profiles of FTFs and the range of relevant “push” and “pull” factors. The personal, social, ideological, religious and gender dimensions, and the role of mental health factors, all recall the need for responses to be informed by, and tailored to, a more nuanced understanding of each and every case and its context. • Violations must be met with suitable remedies and accountability: Satisfying the right of victims to a remedy, and holding to account those responsible for violations, is an important element of any rule of law approach to countering FTF-related threats. Legal remedies for those alleging violations, as well as full and effective reparation for those whose rights have been violated, make an essential contribution to learning from mistakes and shaping lawful responses for the future (see also section 3.9). 102  UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism, UN Doc. A/HRC/37/52, op. cit., note 100, has emphasized that emergencies, as exceptional measures, should be temporary and short-lived. See also: General Comment No. 29 (Article 4: Derogations during a State of Emergency), CCPR, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001, para. 2. As a September 2017 statement of the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism notes, expressing concern at developments in France: “The duration of the state of emergency must be time-bound, revised regularly, and meet the criteria of necessity and proportionality”, <www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=57759#. Wc66brpuKUk>. 103  B. van Ginkel and E. Entenmann (eds.), “The Foreign Fighters Phenomenon in the European Union”, p. 6, op. cit., note 16; “Report on the implementation of the EU Counter Terrorism Strategy”, EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, 24 November 2014, p.6, <http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15799-2014-INIT/en/ pdf>; C. Lister, “Returning Foreign Fighters: Criminalization or Reintegration?”, p. 12, op. cit., note 22. Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters” 33