134 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights ties as “terrorist acts”, renders humanitarian work legally hazardous. Moreover, the Panel learnt that it has become increasingly common since 2001 to criminalise membership in, or support for, a terrorist organisation, irrespective of where that organisation carries out its activities.347 The ambiguity surrounding the meaning of “support” for a terrorist organisation is said to have a chilling effect upon the public discourse around conflict resolution, and was cited as problematic in Sri Lanka. Clearly, sometimes public debate, or charitable work, can be subverted for terrorist propaganda or terrorist purposes, and some legal provisions to counter such abuses are necessary. At the same time, caution must be exercised: violations on the part of governments can mean that provisions that are intended to subvert terrorism may be inadvertently stoking it. The Panel was told of a wide range of related offences, including: associating with or providing material support to terrorists; receiving or giving training to a terrorist organisation; and failure to report information relating to a terrorist act. Valid arguments can be made for pursuing such offences, but examples of their chilling effect and of serious abuse were provided. States have to ensure appropriate safeguards against such human rights violations, and must take precautions not to destroy the lives and reputations of individuals who may come to be publicly portrayed as dangerous terrorist associates, despite having no actual involvement in terrorist activities. It is particularly incumbent on States to avoid casting the net of “association” so widely that the media, defence lawyers,348 human rights groups, and family members (especially children) are wrongly penalised. In the South Asia Hearing, the Panel was told that provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance (TADO) in Nepal,349 first promulgated in November 2001, were used by the military to implicate a range of people allegedly “associated” with terrorism: “Maoist organisations were termed as terrorist organisations and the definition of terrorist acts was so ambiguous anything and everything was covered under the definition. […] Civilians, lawyers who were working for the detainees and even judges were considered as terrorists and the military detained them. So society became silent. Human rights activists and lawyers providing legal aid to detainees were threatened by both the security forces and Maoists as well.” 350 347 See, for example, such legislation in Australia (the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorist Organisations) Act of 2004), India (UAPA (Amendment) Ordinance of 2004), Tanzania (Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2002), Uganda (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002) and the UK (the Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11)). 348 Article 22 of the anti-terrorism law in Tunisia makes it an offence punishable with up to five years in prison for anyone “even where bound by professional secrecy” to fail “to notify immediately the competent authorities of any acts, information or instructions which may have emerged concerning the commission of a terrorist offence”. 349 The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance (TADO) of Nepal was allowed to lapse in September 2006; hundreds of those detained under TADO have also been released. 350 Oral testimony by Mandira Sharma, Advocacy Forum, Nepal, EJP South Asia Hearing.