40 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights rather than any single measure which causes problems. An international human rights lawyer testifying to the Panel in Northern Ireland to this effect: “The idea of prolonged detention without access to a lawyer was a recipe for abuse of detainees, and gave an incentive to the security forces to try to obtain confessions through coercion, rather than rely on forensic evidence or testimonial evidence. The admissibility of confessions was much easier in the emergency law framework than it was in the ordinary criminal justice framework. The use of a single judge, rather than a jury, contributed to an overwhelmingly high conviction rate based on confessions only. Then none of the remedies were adequate – whether it was inquests, tort remedies, or effective oversight of the police […] the institutional incentives to cut corners were overwhelming…”.58 The same trend was noted repeatedly to the Panel. Counter-terrorism laws reduce safeguards; the lack of safeguards facilitates a range of human rights violations; and that limitations on remedies, most particularly judicial remedies, creates impunity for human rights violators. This impunity, particularly over time, can give cover for extra-legal practices, such as disappearances, secret detention and torture. A culture of lawlessness can take hold, and feeds and fuels the very conflict, and terrorism, that the legislation was intended to end. 5. The “permanence” of “emergency” laws and departure from ordinary procedures In 1983, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) conducted a major study on states of emergency around the world. Many of these states of emergency were triggered by, or coincided with, terrorist violence.59 The study documented the corrosive effect of long-term emergencies on the rule of law in various regions. Twenty-five years later, the Panel is able to confirm the continuing accuracy of the ICJ’s findings. The Hearings in the Middle East, Latin America, South Asia and Northern Ireland all underlined the long-term negative effect of prolonged emergencies. A prolonged emergency is characterised by the assumption of greater executive powers, legal frameworks that create an environment prone to human rights violations (including torture and ill-treatment), limitations on accountability mechanisms, and eventually a detrimental effect on the wider criminal justice system. International law respects the fact that emergency powers may be legitimate and necessary when States have to protect their populations and respond to extraordinary threats (see Chapter One). International law regulates in some detail when and how such emergency powers may be called in aid. However, it is equally clear in practice that such powers, once introduced, have often been abused, and have 58 Evidence given at the Northern Ireland Hearing by Martin Flaherty, Chair of the Committee on International Human Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, USA. 59 ICJ, States of Emergency: Their Impact on Human Rights, op. cit.