92 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights human rights law. The Panel heard of the terrible impact on individuals of measures such as administrative detention, expulsion or deportation. In some cases, where persons are expelled or tortured, they risk being tortured upon return; in other cases, the results are not quite so dire, but such measures have led to family breakup and serious trauma. The potential damaging impact can range well beyond the individuals directly affected, and the Panel was told that whole communities felt disproportionately targeted by some of preventive measures being pursued. If individuals are seen to be targeted for arrest and deportation because of a fear of their influence, rather than because of any active involvement in terrorism, the State might alienate whole communities. Preventive measures could come to be perceived as nothing more than an attempt to penalise controversial speech and ideas. The risk of alienating individuals and groups (often those most needed to assist in the prevention of terrorist acts) is greater still when governments rely on unsubstantiated secret intelligence. Doubts about the reliability, quality and provenance of intelligence can undermine otherwise legitimate action because secret intelligence is less amenable to independent verification: preventive measures may be, or appear, arbitrary and discriminatory. States are prevented in law from deporting, or depriving individuals of their liberty, on the basis of information secured by means of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; yet, there is grave suspicion that this may be happening. Although the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is often difficult to establish, particularly where detainees have been held incommunicado, illegal actions of this nature are more likely to be disclosed, and possibly remedied, by the tried and tested principles of criminal law: the individuals concerned have an opportunity to hear, and contest, the evidence against them, to report on any wrongdoing by the authorities, and then to have an impartial authority adjudicate any contradictory claims. The Panel, however, was told of many preventive measures that appear to be created precisely in order to avoid the tried and tested legal requirements of the past. In effect, the criminal justice system, with its well established evidentiary requirements, has been supplanted, at least in part, by a new network of procedures to be found in administrative, civil and immigration law. Some countries have indicated that criminal prosecutions remain their preferred option, but in practice they seem to prefer to be able to act on the lower standard of “risk” rather than “proof ” of criminal activities. Intelligence agencies are less accustomed to having their activities scrutinised, and often have an institutional culture of secrecy that is particularly resistant to disclosure of information in legal proceedings. The Panel recognises that preventive measures, when measured against international tests such as legality, necessity, non-discrimination and proportionality, can be helpful in countering terrorism. However, the evidence shows that in practice such measures are proving problematic and must not be undertaken lightly, or with