8 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights commit terrorist acts. Yet it is apparent, from the definition provided in Resolution 1566, that no one need be excluded. If a State official were to commit an act of this nature, State responsibility would be engaged, but also individual criminal responsibility. The Panel heard ample testimony from Latin America, for example, to lead it to the conclusion that “State terrorism” is something more than mere rhetoric. Similarly, the legitimacy of an aim, such as national liberation (or counter-terrorism, for that matter), can under no circumstances, justify the use of methods that are in violation of international law. Methodology With the support of the ICJ Secretariat and the network of its partner organisations, the Panel engaged in a broad-based consultative process to learn about the impact of terrorism and counter-terrorism measures on human rights and the rule of law around the world. Over a period of more than two years, the Panel undertook an extensive process of consultation through sixteen national and sub-regional Hearings, covering more than forty countries. Most of these countries had experienced a significant threat from terrorism, either in the past or in the present. a. Public Hearings Public Hearings were conducted by sub-committees of the Panel in: Australia, Canada, Colombia, East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda), the European Union and its Member States, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Middle East (Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Yemen), North Africa (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia), Pakistan, the Russian Federation, South Asia (Bangladesh, India, the Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka), South-East Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand), the Southern Cone countries of Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay), the United Kingdom (one Hearing in London on current counter-terrorism policies, and a Hearing on the lessons from the past in Belfast), and in the United States of America. b. Questions Asked In each country or region visited, the Panel provided a template for submissions and asked the following key questions in the course of their Hearings: • What special laws, policies or practices has the government adopted, since 2001, or in the past, which it has justified expressly or implicitly as necessary to counter terrorism? • Have these counter-terrorism measures had an impact on the rule of law and on the rights guaranteed to all persons by international