94 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights The Panel was concerned at the information garnered regarding the diminution of rights for non-citizens: some States are detaining and deporting non-nationals, all in the name of preventing terrorism. Whereas some of these preventive measures fall on people who are considered to pose a concrete risk, others fall on foreigners that have neither committed a criminal offence, nor pose an immediate threat. 2.1 National security removal The Hearings have shown that many States that are proud of their human rights record have placed deportation at the core of their preventive counter-terrorism strategy, for example in Australia, Canada and Member States of the European Union. For example, in May 2007, the Interior Ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom stated that “expulsion related to terrorism has proven to be an effective tool for States in order to protect their people from foreign nationals that are believed to pose a threat to national security.” 212 International human rights law recognises deportation or expulsion of foreigners, including lawful residents, as an acceptable measure. It also traditionally allows States to apply more abbreviated procedures in case of deportation on national security grounds.213 Problems however arise when (as, on occasion, appears to be the case) States deport individuals without due process, with minimal consideration of the proportionality of the measure, and in violation of the principle of non-refoulement. In France, national security removals have been a core component of the State’s preventive strategy since the mid-1990s, following terrorist attacks on the Paris Metro. The Government has adopted two primary approaches to removing noncitizens whom the authorities consider a threat to national security. The courts can propose deportation as punishment for terrorism-related convictions, in which case, the individual serves prison time and is then deported and banned from returning to France from three to ten years, or permanently.214 Alternatively, the Minister of the Interior can order an administrative expulsion based on intelligence reports that classify the individual as a threat to national security.215 Although French national security removals can be appealed within the system of administrative justice, the appeals are not automatically suspensive. This means that individuals who risk torture in the country of return can be, and have been, deported or expelled before their appeals are examined, unless a stay has been issued. If an expulsion is appealed by the individual, the Government’s evidence is contained in intelligence reports that have been referred to as “notes blanches” (white notes), because they 212 Written submission by Human Rights Watch at the EJP European Union Hearing, p. 5, referring to the Conclusions of the G6 meetings in Venice, 11-12 May 2007. 213 See Article 13 of the ICCPR and Article 1 of Protocol 7 of the ECHR. 214 See Criminal Code Articles 131-30-1, 131-30-2, 422-4 and Law 2003-1119 of 26 November 2003 concerning immigration control, the stay of foreigners in France, and nationality, published in the Official Journal No. 274, November 27, 2003, p. 20136. 215 Code on the Entry and Stay of Foreigners and the Right to Asylum, Article L.521-1 (CESEDA).