118 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights 6. Conclusions & Recommendations: preventive measures On the basis of the material submitted, and its own consideration of international law, the Panel came to a number of conclusions about preventive measures. In particular, the Panel concluded that the prevention of terrorism cannot be constrained to a narrow set of legal and procedural arrangements. Learning from the past suggests that a wide range of policy measures are needed: in the matter of education, community relations, policing, the economy, foreign policy, respect for the rights of minority communities, and in the mainstreaming of human rights and equality considerations into all government policy. The preventive measures explored in this chapter in no sense reflect the comprehensive programme of action required of governments if they are to counter terrorism effectively. While it is true that the Panel, by virtue of its composition, was specially qualified to discuss legal measures, it is noteworthy that this also seemed to be the focus of government efforts. Important as law is, it cannot carry all the weight of preventing terrorism, and governments should take a more holistic approach to the challenges faced. Having said that law is not the sole answer, law is clearly part of the answer. The Panel was disturbed at the extent to which crucial legal principles are being degraded in the name of dealing with terrorism. While recognising the value of taking steps to try to prevent terrorism, the Panel was left with the impression that some States are supplanting the normal criminal justice system, in part because of its well-established evidentiary and procedural requirements. This is, the Panel believes, proving to be a very “slippery slope”. The Panel is particularly concerned that the secrecy surrounding preventive measures introduced as part of a State’s counter-terrorism efforts may be seeping into legal systems more generally. In Canada, participants noted that closed hearings and non-disclosure in immigration proceedings have become increasingly common in a wide range of cases beyond those relating to allegations of terrorism. In the UK, participants pointed to the expanding use of “special advocates” in a range of proceedings (including proceedings before parole boards), and a serving special advocate highlighted how the system was creating worrying precedents by legitimising greater use of secret evidence and of secret hearings. a. Preventive measures & immigration While the Panel acknowledges that deportation is provided for in international law, it believes that the gravity of the measures must be fully recognised. The tests of legality, necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination should be applied rigorously. The following safeguards are vital: • Immigration law should not serve as a substitute for criminal law; • Any detention process, and individual detention decisions, should be properly grounded, and subject to regular and effective review by a judicial body;