56 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights adopted by the International Court of Justice,100 the UN Committee against Torture,101 and the UN Human Rights Committee.102 According to the latter, “States Parties are required […] to respect and to ensure the Covenant rights to all persons who may be within their territory and to all persons subject to their jurisdiction. This means that a State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of the State Party.” 103 Regional bodies, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights104 and the European Court of Human Rights105 have adopted a similar approach. The fact that there is no credible legal basis for a “war” on terror, as defined under the laws of war, outside of situations involving actual armed conflict, does not however imply that there is no legal framework within which to confront al-Qaeda and associated groups. On the contrary, criminal and human rights law remain fully applicable and, in the view of the Panel, these legal regimes are amply equipped to address the challenges of terrorism. 5. Adverse human rights consequences arising from the war paradigm The Panel received extensive testimony on the adverse human rights consequences associated with the war paradigm,106 both for the law and the persons affected. There is little value in re-visiting the extensive material relating to alleged human 100 International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 136, para. 10. 101 See UN Committee against Torture, Conclusions and recommendations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/33/3, 10 December 2004, para. 4(b); Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, United States of America, UN Doc. CAT/C/ USA/CO/2, 25 July 2006, para. 14. 102 UN Human Rights Committee, Views of 29 July 1981, López Burgos v. Uruguay, Communication No. 52/1979; Views of 29 July 1981, Lilian Celiberti de Casariego v. Uruguay, Communication No. 56/1979; Views of 31 March 1983, Mabel Pereira Montero v. Uruguay, Communication No. 106/1981 and Concluding Observations on the United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.50, A/50/40, 6 April 1995, paras. 266-304, and UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1, para. 10, Concluding observations on Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, 21 August 2003, para. 11, and CCPR/C/79/Add.93; Concluding observations on Poland, UN Doc. CCPR/ CO/82/POL, 2 December 2004, para. 3; Concluding observations on Belgium, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/BEL, 12 August 2004, para. 6. 103 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, para. 10. 104 See, for example, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Request for precautionary measures in favour of detainees being held by the United States at Guantánamo Bay, 12 March 2002, ILM, 2002, vol. 41, pp. 532-535. See also IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/ ll.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., 22 October 2002 and IACHR, Coard et al. v. United States, Case 10, 951, Report No. 109/99, 29 September 1999, para. 37. 105 See ECtHR, Judgment of 23 March 1995, Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), Series A No. 310, Application No. 15318/89, paras. 60 and 61; Judgment of 10 May 2001, Cyprus v. Turkey, Application No 25781/94, para. 77; Grand Chamber Decision of 12 December 2001, Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 other contracting States, Application No. 52207/99, para. 71. 106 See the summary of the EJP United States Hearing for further references.