108 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights responsibilities, has to be the sole judge of what national security requires”.260 The lack of any meaningful judicial review of executive actions has led to the use of the ISA against political opponents, civil society activists, and non-violent dissent.261 Allegations of torture and other ill-treatment inflicted on ISA detainees in the past are prevalent, but the Panel was told that the situation in Malaysia has worsened since the events of 9/11. It is alleged that the changed international climate has both supplied the Government with some “justification” for its continuing and increased use of administrative detention; and it has silenced several of those governments that might have been critical in the past.262 The South Asia Hearing also provided examples of the dangers inherent in administrative detention powers. For example, in Nepal, administrative detention under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance (TADO), had largely replaced criminal prosecutions during the conflict. TADO was first promulgated in November 2001, and repeatedly renewed, until it was finally allowed to lapse in 2006. The Panel was told that almost all individuals who were detained under TADO were held incommunicado in unofficial places, such as army barracks or base camps, and repeatedly moved from one place to another, before eventually reaching official detention centres (jails or High Security Centres). Administrative detention in military custody had resulted in serious human rights violations, including torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and disappearances. While detainees had the possibility of filing habeas corpus petitions, in practice, the military had frustrated court orders by re-arresting the detainees, sometimes even on court premises.263 Evidence provided to the Panel on Pakistan was particularly striking. When a state of emergency was declared in November 2007, on the grounds among others that some members of the judiciary were “working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism”,264 many protestors, including lawyers were subjected to house arrest or administrative detention under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, or detained without reference to any law.265 The Pakistani member of the Panel, Hina Jilani, the then Secretary General’s Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders, and other senior lawyers and judges were targeted in a blatant abuse of counter-terrorism measures against human rights defenders.266 260 Federal Court of Appeals of Malaysia, Case of Mohamad Ezam bin Mohd. Noor v. Ketua Polis Negara and Others [2002] 4 M.L.J. 449. 261 See written submission by Suara Rakyat, Malaysia (SUARAM), EJP South East Asia Hearing. 262 Ibid. 263 See for example, oral testimony by Mandira Sharma, Advocacy Forum, Nepal, EJP South Asia Hearing. 264 Proclamation of Emergency, issued by President General Musharraf, 3 November 2007. 265 See report by Human Rights Watch, Destroying Legality: Pakistan’s crackdown on Lawyers and Judges, December 2007. 266 Ms Hina Jilani had a ninty day detention order issued against her, though it was not enforced after she returned to Pakistan from overseas.