sources cited, whether or not legally binding on a particular state, provide guidance regarding good practice in the application of human rights in the OSCE region. Human rights as the guarantor of human dignity One rationale of human rights is the guarantee of human dignity. It was for this reason that the drafters of the UDHR highlighted human dignity in the first paragraph of its preamble. They were responding to some of the worst atrocities committed in the history of the world against human dignity. Therefore, the principles they set out were designed to guard against any potential future Holocaust or other carnage such as those that occurred across the globe throughout the 1930s and 1940s. The UDHR and the human rights instruments that were inspired by it are therefore designed to counter threats to democratic values, which would certainly include threats from terrorism. As part of that guarantee of human dignity, human rights standards also aim to ensure that power is exercised in an accountable manner. Power, in this context, is generally taken to mean the state, that is, it is governments that are primarily responsible for ensuring human rights and that should be held accountable for violations. In other words, human rights principally concern the relationship between the individual and the state. They can only be derogated in time of public emergency that threatens the life of the nation, and only in a limited manner and in ways that do not involve discrimination. Moreover, where there is a reasonable assertion that an individual’s human rights are violated, that individual is entitled to an effective remedy. Enhancing human rights standards means that any response to an unlawful act must be carefully targeted to avoid violating human rights. If a particular violation is identified that needs to be addressed — for example, incitement to violence — the control imposed should address the specific problem, without undermining human rights. This applies to counterterrorism proposals in the same way that it should apply to all public policy. Counter-terrorism measures do not trump human rights. On the contrary, within democratic societies, including OSCE participating States, counter-terrorism proposals must be compatible with human rights. Under extreme circumstances there may be a requirement to lawfully derogate from human rights standards. At the same time, however, the requirement for a targeted or proportionate response may mean that it is inappropriate to adopt certain counter-terrorism or emergency measures. In fact, the normal workings of criminal law may be suitable to respond to the particular issue, even if the crime in question is alleged to have been committed by a group or individual thought to be terrorist. The only effective counter-terrorism strategy compatible with OSCE commitments, therefore, will be one that has understood and integrated human rights. Developing such a strategy requires an understanding of how human rights work. The application of human rights standards is not limited to citizens. Human rights are available to all individuals, regardless of nationality or statelessness, such as asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers and other persons who find themselves in a state’s territory or subject to its jurisdiction.127 127 Article 1, ECHR; Article 2(1) ICCPR. See also UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31. Certain rights, such as the right to vote and to be elected, may legitimately be limited to citizens. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 59