“Practical and effective” Human rights standards are not intended to guarantee rights that are theoretical or illusory, but rights that are “practical and effective.”139 As far as international tribunals are concerned, merely asserting the existence of rights is not sufficient to satisfy this test of “practical and effective.” Rights have to be genuinely accessible. For example, in a key case concerning access to court involving a particularly unpleasant divorce, the unavailability of legal aid for a woman with no ability to pay for legal advice meant that in reality she had no access to court, even though in theory such a right existed.140 This obligation to ensure the practicality and effectiveness of rights is directly linked to the right to an effective remedy and the rule of law. The nature of civil and political rights In order to understand how rights work, it is essential to recognize that some types of rights may be qualified or limited under certain circumstances. Counter-terrorism policies have to be nuanced to respond to the particular type of rights at issue. Civil and political rights can be categorized into different types of rights: • absolute rights, which permit no qualification or interference under any circumstances; • limited rights, that can be limited within constraints that are spelt out in the article of the ICCPR or ECHR that sets out the right; • qualified rights, or those rights that permit restrictions intended to balance either between the individual and the community, or between two competing rights. Any restriction on these rights has to be for a specific purpose.141 In addition, some rights may be derogable under some circumstances in accordance with the human rights treaties. 139 “Article 2, paragraph 3, requires that in addition to effective protection of Covenant rights States Parties must ensure that individuals also have accessible and effective remedies to vindicate those rights. Such remedies should be appropriately adapted so as to take account of the special vulnerability of certain categories of person, including in particular children. The Committee attaches importance to States Parties’ establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations under domestic law. The Committee notes that the enjoyment of the rights recognized under the Covenant can be effectively assured by the judiciary in many different ways, including direct applicability of the Covenant, application of comparable constitutional or other provisions of law, or the interpretive effect of the Covenant in the application of national law. Administrative mechanisms are particularly required to give effect to the general obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies. National human rights institutions, endowed with appropriate powers, can contribute to this end. A failure by a State Party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. Cessation of an ongoing violation is an essential element of the right to an effective remedy”, op. cit., note 127, HRC, General Comment No. 31, para. 15. 140 “The Government contends that the application does enjoy access to the High Court since she is free to go before that court without the assistance of a lawyer. The Court does not regard this possibility, of itself, as conclusive of the matter. The Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective”, ECtHR, Airey v. Ireland, Application no. 6289/73, 9 October 1979, para. 24. 141 For this classification, see K. Starmer, Human Rights Digest (London, 2001), p. 2. 66 Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights