Assessing Damage, Urging Action regions, but neither should there be a simplistic claim of exceptionalism, since this blinds governments to both negative and positive learning from the past. b. A military response to terrorism may seem to offer a short-term solution, but often creates long-term problems: a security perspective alone can become so dominant that other approaches are neglected, and human rights and the rule of law are undermined. The Panel recommends that States rely in principle on police and civilian law enforcement in countering terrorism. In exceptional circumstances, when it is determined that the armed forces be involved, those forces should be made subject to civilian control, and they should be held accountable by way of an independent civilian judiciary. c. Civilians should not in principle be brought before military or special courts. d. The introduction of counter-terrorism laws should be considered very carefully. Care should be exercised in deciding to introduce any new laws at all – often changes are needed in the policy arena rather than legislation, and sometimes the existing legislation is quite adequate. If new laws are thought necessary, the legislature should be given its proper role in scrutinising proposals closely, rather than being required to rush through a range of discretionary powers in an ill-considered manner. Any new legislation should avoid vaguely defined offences, and should meet the international tests of necessity, legality and proportionality. Most importantly of all, all counter-terrorist measures should include appropriate safeguards and oversight mechanisms. e. Institutional safeguards become more, not less, important at times of crisis. The experience from the past would suggest that the greater the danger to society, the clearer should be the lines of accountability. The legislature and judiciary each have a special responsibility to ensure that the executive respects the rule of law in its counter-terrorist response. Most particularly, the civilian judiciary should retain its jurisdiction to review the provisions, and supervise the application, of all counter-terrorism measures, without interference from the political branches of government. f. All legislation intended to deal with terrorism should be regularly reviewed to ensure that the tests initially met still prevail, and to ensure that no unintended consequences have arisen. In line with international law, emergency laws can only be lawful for the duration of a genuine emergency, and therefore must be time-limited, and subject to independent review. The international community has a particular role to play in responding to serious human rights violations committed in the context of counter-terrorism, and the UN (and regional bodies as appropriate) should also ensure that derogations from international law do not become “normalised”. 47