***** The Committee expresses its concern that … the State party indicated that no study had been undertaken to ensure that legislative and other measures in pursuance of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) were in compliance with its obligations under the Covenant. The State party is under an obligation to ensure that counter-terrorism measures taken under Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) are in full conformity with the Covenant. --CCPR/CO/75/MDA, para. 8 (2002). ***** While it understands the security requirements connected with the events of 11 September 2001, the Committee expresses its concern … at the attitude of the security forces, including Political Security, which arrests and detains anyone suspected of links with terrorism, in violation of the guarantees set out in the Covenant (art. 9). The State party should ensure that the measures taken in the name of the campaign against terrorism are within the limits of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) and fully consistent with the provisions of the Covenant. It is requested to ensure that the fear of terrorism does not become a source of abuse. --CCPR/CO/75/YEM, para. 18 (2002). ***** The Committee notes with concern that the State party, in seeking inter alia to give effect to its obligations to combat terrorist activities pursuant to Security Council resolution 1373 (2001), is considering the adoption of legislative measures which may have potentially far-reaching effects on rights guaranteed in the Covenant and which, in the State party's view, may require derogations from human rights obligations. The State party should ensure that any measures it undertakes in this regard are in full compliance with the provisions of the Covenant, including, when applicable, the provisions on derogation contained in article 4 of the Covenant. --CCPR/CO/73/UK, para. 6 (2001). European Court of Human Rights [T]he Court stresses that this does not mean that the Contracting States enjoy an unlimited discretion to subject persons within their jurisdiction to secret surveillance. The Court, being aware of the danger such a law poses of undermining or even destroying democracy on the ground of defending it, 14