Assessing Damage, Urging Action insufficient human rights safeguards. This chapter looks in turn at those preventive measures which were the focus of most attention in the course of the Hearings: a. Preventive measures in the area of immigration (detention, expulsions and deportation); b. Administrative detention without charge or trial; c. Control orders and other preventive restrictions of liberty; d. Listing of individuals or organisations on terrorism lists. 2. Immigration detention, expulsions and deportation The emphasis in recent years on the transnational nature of the terrorist threat has meant that States increasingly have placed their immigration law at the centre of their preventive counter-terrorism strategy. Greater reliance is now being placed on deportations, detention pending deportations, and control schemes when deportation fails, as a way of preventing terrorism. Human rights law traditionally places less stringent obligations on States in immigration proceedings than in criminal or other legal proceedings, for example as regards the right to examine evidence or to call witnesses.211 Domestic laws and regulations governing immigration thus tend to provide fewer legal safeguards than those provided to individuals facing criminal charges. Reliance on secret intelligence in this context is likely to reduce those safeguards further. It was, therefore, highly problematic to learn that governments seem to be relying on immigration law as the preferred option in a number of counter-terrorism cases, presumably precisely because it allows governments greater discretion. States often face less scrutiny from the general public when preventive measures are rooted in immigration procedures, and therefore “only” affect foreigners. Some States have furthermore justified their actions by reference to their duty to protect their own citizens. Foreigners living within the jurisdiction may not have all the same political rights as citizens, but they lose none of their basic human rights, and in that regard they must benefit from exactly the same protections as everyone else. Indeed, governments who give a high public priority to fighting terrorism by way of immigration procedures risk presenting immigration itself as a potential security risk, and conflating terrorism and immigration in the minds of the public. 211 There is a lack of consensus that the right to a fair trial (Article 14 ICCPR, Article 6 ECHR) applies in deportation or expulsion proceedings, with some arguing that it is only the more limited right to an effective remedy (Article 2, para. 3 ICCPR; Article 13 and Article 1 Protocol 7 ECHR) that applies. See, on the due process requirements, UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32: Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial (hereinafter: General Comment No. 32), UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007, paras. 17 and 62. 93