20 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights For the avoidance of doubt, two important clarifications should be noted. First, there are certain core rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, that are non-derogable.19 In other words, regardless of the nature or the severity of the threat, there are some human rights that are considered to be non-negotiable. For example, in no circumstances whatsoever, can States ever engage in torture, or arbitrarily deprive people of their right to life. It is clearly significant that the world community has determined that there is no conceivable circumstance in which their infringement is considered acceptable. Second, frequent reference has been made in this section to the intentions of the “framers” of the international human rights and humanitarian law system. It is worth emphasising that the “framers” of these laws are States themselves. The legal parameters by which States are to be judged, by their peers, and by their citizens, have been negotiated long and hard by sovereign States. States know, or ought to know, that the international legal framework has evolved in such a way as to allow States to respond to serious crises and emergency situations. This is the human rights framework which the Panel has relied upon in carrying out its global study. States have agreed to be bound by international law and they have steadily built upon the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights by way of subsequent treaties and jurisprudence, looking inter alia at the issue of the relationships between terrorism, security and human rights. The testimony gathered by the Panel confirmed that human rights law provides sufficient flexibility for States to adjust to security needs; States should rely upon this framework rather than seek to re-write the rule book. exceptional and temporary measures. Accordingly, such measures should be lifted as soon as the emergency which justified their imposition no longer exists or can be managed by less intrusive means under the relevant instrument. This jurisprudence also suggests that as the underlying purpose of such measures is to permit States to protect democratic institutions, the rule of law and the enjoyment of basic freedoms, such measures cannot lawfully be undertaken to weaken or destroy them”. 19 The following rights are identified as non-derogable in Article 4 (2) ICCPR: the right to life, the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the prohibition of slavery, the prohibition of imprisonment because of inability to fulfil a contractual debt, the prohibition of retroactive laws, the recognition of everyone as a person before the law, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In addition, the UN Human Rights Committee, in General Comment No. 29: States of emergency (Article 4) (hereinafter: General Comment No. 29), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001, identified the following provisions of the ICCPR as not being lawfully derogable: the humane treatment of all persons deprived of liberty; the prohibition of hostage-taking, abductions or unacknowledged detentions; the protection of persons belonging to minorities; the prohibition of unlawful deportation or transfer of populations; propaganda for war, or advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that would constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, the right to an effective remedy and to challenge the lawfulness of detention. Equally, the right to be tried by an independent and impartial court and most components of the right to a fair trial are recognised as non-derogable, see Legal Commentary to the ICJ Berlin Declaration, Principle 4, p. 27 et seq.