Assessing Damage, Urging Action into the domestic laws of Member States. Complaints about such laws and the fact that the definitions used are vague or over-broad have been fully documented in reports of the UN Human Rights Committee and other treaty bodies.306 The Panel received extensive testimony about the consequences arising from vague and over-broad counter-terrorist laws. Three examples, from different parts of the world, may be of relevance. Chile According to Chilean participants at the Hearing in the Southern Cone, political or ideological offences in the Pinochet era were treated as “terrorism”. Legislative amendments in 1991 removed any political connotations, and conceived of terrorism as an egregious type of violent crime against the person.307 The list of offences, which could constitute a crime of terrorism includes arson. It was alleged that, since early 2002, this law has been selectively applied against members of the Mapuche indigenous community (for arson attacks on properties of landowners and forestry companies in the context of land disputes). The application of anti-terrorism law rather than ordinary criminal law provides for special relaxed procedures, and the use of anonymous witnesses. The prejudice attached to a charge of “terrorism” also meant that Mapuche suspects were usually denied bail, and faced prolonged pre-trial detention. India The 1984 Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and the 2001 Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) criminalised as a “terrorist act”, unauthorised possession of arms, including revolvers and pistols, in “notified areas” punishable with up to life imprisonment.308 In practice, the Panel was told that special 306 See, for instance, UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations on Belgium, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/81/ BEL, 12 August 2004, para. 24; Concluding Observations on Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, 21 August 2003, para. 14; Concluding Observations on Iceland, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/83/ISL, 25 April 2005, para. 10; Concluding Observations on Estonia, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/77/EST, 15 April 2003; Concluding Observations on Canada, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5, 20 April 2006, para. 12; Concluding Observations on the Philippines, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/79/PHL, 1 December 2003, para. 9; Concluding Observations on Uzbekistan, CCPR/ CO/83/UZB, 6 April 2005, para. 18; and Concluding Observations on Algeria, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.95, 18 August 1998, para. 11; Concluding Observations on Egypt, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/Add.23, 9 August 1993, para. 8; and Concluding Observations on Peru, CCPR/C/79/Add.67, 25 July 1996, para. 12; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Second report on the situation of human rights in Peru, OAS Doc. OEA/ Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 59 rev., 2 June 2000, para. 80; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of May 30, 1999, Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, Series C No. 52, para. 121. 307 The law 18,314 (Anti-terrorism law) provides a list of offences which would constitute a crime of terrorism, if committed “[w]ith the intention of producing in the population, or in part of it, a well-founded fear of falling victim to the same type of crime, either because of the nature and effects of the method used, or by evidence that the act was part of a premeditated plan to attack a specific group or category of persons”. The list of offences which can potentially constitute crimes of terrorism include: murder; kidnapping; hostage-taking; sending explosive substances; arson; attacks on transport; assassination. 308 Section 4 of POTA provided: “Where any person is in unauthorised possession of any—(a) arms or 125