120 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights guarantees, and in particular must be strictly necessary, proportionate to the threat and non-discriminatory; • minimal safeguards must include prompt access to legal advice of one’s own choice, effective habeas corpus, and access to independent judicial authority; • the right to take proceedings before a court so that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of detention must not be diminished, even in a state of emergency; • the option for judicial review of decisions affecting administrative detainees must be not only of a procedural nature; judicial review must allow for substantive consideration of the case and allow for release to be ordered; • effective access to legal counsel must allow for clients to communicate in confidence; • strict time limits must apply and States may not detain suspected terrorists for indefinite or prolonged periods without charge or trial; and • the treatment of individuals subject to administrative detention should as a rule be governed by the same standards as that of prisoners accused of criminal offences. The right of all persons to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention is central to the rule of law. It is clear from contemporary and historical examples that administrative detention can give rise to a number of serious human rights violations. It is for this very reason that international law requires that any departure from this basic principle be convincingly argued; the Panel was disturbed to find many examples where no such argument was forthcoming. c. Control Orders Control orders are qualitatively different from preventive measures such as surveillance. The orders are not aimed at determining risk levels, and gathering information for subsequent criminal proceedings, but rather at placing restrictions (amounting to sanctions) on the individual concerned. Accordingly, control orders could give rise to a “parallel” legal system and, especially over the longer term, undermine the rule of law. This risk can only be minimised by treating control orders as exceptional measures, subject to time limits and judicial review against tests such as “legality”, “necessity”, “proportionality”, and “non-discrimination”.