42 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights a failure from a security, political and human rights perspective. The charge that the emergency legislation failed, even in its own terms, holds true, in particular, for the policy of internment. Terrorist suspects were interned between 1972 and 1975 (though internment remained on the statute book until 1998), but senior army officers and government ministers have since described it as an “unmitigated disaster”.64 Community tensions were fuelled; hopes for peaceful change through reform and dialogue were crushed; and recruitment to armed groups (Republican and Loyalist) increased. Northern Ireland’s experience shows the importance of insisting upon international standards regarding the time-limiting of emergency or special measures. 6. The impact on society As jurists, the members of the Panel are primarily concerned with examining the impact on the domestic and international legal framework of the current terrorist and counter-terrorist measures. However, it would be remiss to fail to report on the moving testimony received about the impact on society more broadly of past terrorist and counter-campaigns. In evidence from Argentina, victims’ organisations spoke of torture, kidnappings and enforced disappearances and said “Throughout the continent, armed and security forces carried out atrocities and violations against unarmed and defenceless populations. The 1970’s and ‘80’s have left terrible memories in Latin America…” 65 Counter-terrorism measures in the past were said to be counter-productive even in their own terms since they often alienated the very people who might assist in the task of gathering intelligence, preventing terrorist acts, and providing evidence for the arrest and trial and punishment of terrorists. Of course, it is easy to make these observations with the wisdom of hindsight. The disappointing aspect of the present situation is how little governments appear to be using hindsight to analyse the choices to be made when responding to contemporary threats from terrorism. Experience suggests that neither counter-terrorism laws nor operations, nor indeed military might alone, can prevent or resolve the problems created by terrorism. Comprehensive solutions, including political, social and economic approaches, are necessary. This message was repeatedly stressed to the Panel, particularly in those Hearings where the people concerned had lived through long periods of political violence. The Panel found evidence that a security perspective, which needs to be part of the search for a solution, rapidly became so dominant that human rights and political approaches were neglected, or even contradicted.66 Several witnesses in the 64 Cited in CAJ, preliminary submission to the EJP, April 2006, p. 21. 65 See amongst others, oral testimony by Marta Ocampo de Vazquez, Mothers of Plaza de Mayo – Línea Fundadora, EJP Southern Cone Hearing. 66 This issue was raised notably in the Panel’s Hearings on Northern Ireland and South Asia (in relation to India, Sri Lanka and Nepal), but was also discussed in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in