12 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights all of whom have had to confront issues relevant to this report in the course of their professional careers. The Panel was concerned at many of the specific details of violations, but was particularly impressed by the similarity of experiences recounted. The commonality of experience, and its global reach, provided evidence of a far more serious erosion of respect for human rights and the rule of law than the Panel had expected. It was notable that some governments allegedly responsible for serious human rights violations did not deny the allegations made. Indeed some openly defended practices such as indefinite detention without charge or trial, citing the unprecedented nature of the contemporary terrorist threat to justify their departure from previously accepted legal norms. Others suggested that key human rights principles have to be read differently in light of the exceptional threat. The Panel was particularly struck by the fact that it was often liberal democratic societies – States that previously lauded the importance of the rule of law and human rights protections – that are now at the forefront of undermining those protections. In departing from previously accepted norms of behaviour, such governments also give succour to others that have routinely violated the human rights of their citizens. Some government policies imply and, in some cases, government representatives openly discussed the possibility that individuals suspected of involvement in terrorist acts fall outside certain basic human rights protections (perhaps because of their statelessness or their supposed status as “enemy combatants”). The logic of this stance is that certain governments want to reserve for themselves the power to designate a class of people who are not entitled to the same rights as other human beings. The Panel came to the inevitable conclusion that the very foundations of the human rights culture, developed over the past sixty years, is being undermined. The Panel concluded that the need to protect human rights, and to maintain strong legal safeguards and remedies, is often perceived as running counter to what States need to do to address terrorism, rather than as an inherent component of any longterm strategy to tackle terrorism. The Hearings and, most importantly, the private discussions with governments and security officials illustrated to the Panel that the world, seven years after the events of 9/11, is still searching for guidance in finding the proper response to terrorism. Clearly it would be improper to underestimate the fact that many governments are grappling sincerely with difficult problems. States have a legal duty to protect society against terrorist attacks, and some of them are trying to adapt their legal and policy frameworks to meet this threat effectively. The Panel concludes, however, that in their attempts to respond to the threats posed by terrorism many States have ignored or under-estimated the implications of tampering with the foundations of the human rights system. Accordingly, the Panel came to the inexorable conclusion that there must be a halt to the trends set in motion or, in some countries, exacerbated by the events of 9/11.