38 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights Moreover, large numbers of people were arrested and deprived of their liberty under this legislation, but few were tried, and even fewer were convicted. The Panel was informed that out of a total of 77,550 persons arrested under TADA throughout India, only 8,000 were tried, and only 725 (0.81 %) convicted.55 This low conviction rate (reported from other jurisdictions also) confirms that many individuals arrested under counter-terrorist legislation may have had no real connection with terrorism. The primary purpose of arrest may not have been for the purposes of criminal investigation, but rather as a method of information-gathering, a de facto form of administrative detention, or a method of intimidation of a suspect population. The Panel was told that there is an understandable temptation for law-enforcement agencies to rely on “special” or simplified procedures in cases not foreseen by those who originally drafted anti-terrorism laws. The Indian example shows that, arrests in states like Punjab, Kashmir, Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Assam, Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere were increasingly made under the provisions of TADA. This happened even when the cases fell more properly within the ambit of the normal provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or the Indian Penal Code. The anti-terrorist law was seen as having numerous procedural advantages in comparison to the normal law; for example, if the authorities wanted to benefit from more stringent bail provisions, there was a clear incentive to apply the antiterrorism law, rather than the ordinary criminal law provisions. 4.2 Lower safeguards and standards Counter-terrorism laws have frequently in the past (and still today as will be seen) reduced legal safeguards relating to arrest, detention, treatment, and trial in order to provide a supposedly more effective framework to combat terrorism. Historically, such measures, in particular, the exclusion or limitation of access to courts, have encouraged prolonged arbitrary and incommunicado detention, and created an environment prone to abuse. The implementation of such laws in countries including Turkey, South Africa, and India illustrates the point. A particularly telling example is that of Sri Lanka, which still faces a long-standing internal armed conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE or Tamil Tigers). The Sri Lanka Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) was adopted, first as a temporary measure in 1979, and then as permanent legislation in 1983. The PTA contains far-reaching powers to detain, arrest, hold incommunicado, and to limit access to courts. Torture and other gross violations have resulted from the undermining of these important safeguards. One commentator predicted in advance that 55 Ibid., citing statistics by the Union Home Ministry of India.