The Human Rights Committee, as the main institution with responsibility for ensuring the implementation of the ICCPR, has confirmed that law should not be so vague as to permit too much discretion and unpredictability in its implementation.129 This principle should also be recognized as forming a key element of customary international law. In the context of terrorism, its definition, and the definition of terrorism-related crimes in national legislation, the Human Rights Committee has made a number of critical observations with regard to the obligation to respect the principle of legality.130 For example, the Committee has found that the vague definitions in some counter-terrorism legislation and regulations “appear to run counter to the principle of legality in several aspects owing to the ambiguous wording of the provisions”.131 In its rulings in various cases, the Committee has also criticized very broad and general definitions of terrorism, as well as counter-terrorism legislation that is of “exceedingly broad scope.”132 The rule of law The OSCE participating States have agreed that they: (2) […] are determined to support and advance those principles of justice which form the basis of the rule of law. They consider that the rule of law does not mean merely a formal legality which assures regularity and consistency in the achievement and enforcement of democratic order, but justice based on the recognition and full acceptance of the supreme value of the human personality and guaranteed by institutions providing a framework for its fullest expression. (3) They reaffirm that democracy is an inherent element of the rule of law […] (5) They solemnly declare that among those elements of justice which are essential to the full expression of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all human beings are the following: […] (5.3) the duty of the government and public authorities to comply with the constitution and to act in a manner consistent with law; […] (5.5) the activity of the government and the administration as well as that of the judiciary will be exercised in accordance with the system established by law. Respect for that system must be ensured; […] (5.8) legislation, adopted at the end of a public procedure, and regulations will be published, that being the condition for their applicability. Those texts will be accessible to everyone; (5.9) all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law will prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground […]. (1990 Copenhagen Document) 129 HRC, Pinkney v. Canada, Communication No. 27/1977, doc. CCPR/C/14/D/27/1977, 29 October 1981, para. 34, and HRC, General Comment 27, doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, 2 November 1999, para. 13 (“In adopting laws providing for restrictions permitted by article 12, paragraph 3, States should always be guided by the principle that the restrictions must not impair the essence of the right […] the relation between right and restriction, between norm and exception, must not be reversed. The laws authorizing the application of restrictions should use precise criteria and may not confer unfettered discretion on those charged with their execution”). 130 See E.J. Flynn, “Counter-terrorism and Human Rights”, European Human Rights Law Review, 2005, Issue 1, p. 29. 131 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Israel, doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, 21 August 2003, para 14. 132 Cf. Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Egypt, doc. CCPR/CO/76/EGY, 28 November 2002, para. 16; the Philippines, doc. CCPR/CO/7/PHL, 1 December 2003, para. 9; Belarus, doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.86, 19 November 1997, para. 15; Estonia, doc. CCPR/CO/77/EST, 15 April 2003, para. 8; Belgium, doc. CCPR/CO/81/BEL, 12 August 2004, para. 24; Uganda, doc. CCPR/CO/80/UGA, para. 8; New Zealand, doc. CCPR/CO/75/NZL, 7 August 2002, para. 11. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 61