3.4 Exercising Restraint when Resorting to “Administrative Measures” Recommendations OSCE participating States should: • Ensure that administrative measures, which lead to human rights restrictions and may have a punitive effect, are not used to circumvent the protections of criminal law; • Ensure that restrictions on rights resulting from administrative measures are prescribed by law, strictly necessary, proportionate, non-discriminatory and otherwise in accordance with international human rights standards; • Refrain from resorting to deprivation of citizenship as a generally applied policy to prevent and counter terrorism, including FTF-related offences; ensure, that if stripping of citizenship is used, it is in the most exceptional circumstances, is not applied arbitrarily and does not lead to statelessness; and that any subsequent measures that lead to restrictions on rights (such as denial of entry or deportation) are still strictly justified as necessary and proportionate; and • Ensure that restrictions on the right to liberty and to freedom of movement comply with fundamental human rights principles – including the principle of legality, necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination – and are accompanied by stringent safeguards, including judicial approval and review. Furthermore, those subjected to such measures must be provided with sufficient information on the grounds for the imposition of that particular measure, and be given the right to challenge the lawfulness of the measures and other due process guarantees. There is a trend across the OSCE area towards increasing use of administrative measures in countering terrorism. Although not defined, the term “administrative measures” is generally used to refer to restrictive measures, of a non-criminal nature, that are imposed by the executive in the name of terrorism prevention.155 Although increasingly onerous and wide-reaching in their impact on human rights, they are characteristically accompanied by limited judicial review.156 Those subject to such measures often receive little or no access to information concerning the basis for those measures or have limited opportunities to challenge such measures in line with fundamental due process standards and the right to a remedy (see also section 3.9). 155  See, for example, B. Boutin, “Administrative Measures against Foreign Fighters: In Search of Limits and Safeguards”, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 16 December 2016, <https://icct.nl/publication/administrative-measures-against-foreign-fighters-in-search-of-limits-and-safeguards/>, (hereafter, B. Boutin, “Administrative Measures against Foreign Fighters: In Search of Limits and Safeguards”). 156  Ibid, p. 5. 46 Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters”