definition of terrorism, this would require individuals to intend to contribute to the use of violence or cause death or serious harm to civilians for the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government to do or abstain from any act. The vast number of preventive offences that have emerged in the counter-terrorism context in recent years have been described as “ad hoc extensions of the criminal law”.122 They reflect the understandable desire to intervene early to prevent terrorism as states have an obligation to prevent terrorist acts. But in doing so they must ensure that criminal law measures to that end uphold the principles on which their legitimacy depends. Disproportionate and Otherwise Arbitrary Applications of Criminal Law Criminal law should be employed only as a last resort. The principle of ultima ratio (criminal law as a last resort) is recognized in criminal law theory and reflected in, for example, the EU approach to Criminal Law: “Whereas in view of its being able by its very nature to restrict certain human rights and fundamental freedoms of suspected, accused or convicted persons, in addition to the possible stigmatising effect of criminal investigations, and taking into account that excessive use of criminal legislation leads to a decline in efficiency, criminal law must be applied as a measure of last resort (ultima ratio) addressing clearly defined and delimited conduct, which cannot be addressed effectively by less severe measures and which causes significant damage to society or individuals…”123 The principle of liberal criminal law often corresponds to what has been described as the “culture of executive restraint” in prosecution.124 However, recent international developments in countering terrorism, including the threats and challenges posed by FTFs, related legislative changes and prosecution practice, even for relatively minor offences, suggest that states across the OSCE area are exercising less restraint in their use of criminal law.125 The effect of treating large groups of people as suspected criminals has been questioned recurrently, as it may contribute to the sense of injustice (real or perceived) that can attract individuals to becoming FTFs. Such developments also add to trends of criminalization and prosecution of a range of legitimate activities – from journalism, participation in non-governmental organizations, 122  A. Ashworth and L. Zedner, Preventive Justice, op. cit., note 105, pp. 3, 98. Referring to “offences aimed at purely preparatory conduct” that “may be criminalized without the need for proof of an intent to cause harm” Ashworth and Zedner state: “These offences are specific to terrorism, and are ad hoc extensions of the criminal law aimed at exerting a preventive effect, largely by authorizing police action at a relatively early stage”. 123  European Parliament, EU Approach to Criminal Law, op. cit., note 108. 124  D. Anderson, “Shielding the Compass: How to Fight Terrorism without Defeating the Law”, UK Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, 15 June 2013, <terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov. uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SHIELDING-THE-COMPASS1.pdf>, p. 6, (hereafter, D. Anderson, “Shielding the Compass: How to Fight Terrorism without Defeating the Law”). 125  Controversial examples already referred to earlier include the convictions of mothers and other family members for sending basic funds to their children overseas under broad terrorist financing provisions, on the basis for example that they “knew the recipient was radicalised” so there was a risk the money could have been used for terrorist purpose. See B. Boutin, “Has Countering the Financing of Terrorism Gone Wrong? Prosecuting the Parents of Foreign Terrorist Fighters”, op. cit., note 121. Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters” 39