22 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights of their Hearings around the world.21 States have a duty to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of terrorist acts. In addition, when States themselves are responsible for terrorist acts, whether through their agents or proxies, they are required to provide remedies, including reparation. In those instances where terrorist acts are committed in the context of armed conflict, international humanitarian law will also apply. States can only fully respect the rights of victims if they comply with their legal obligations. Fourth, human rights can address and remedy any genuine injustices that may give succour to terrorism. Sometimes violent conflict is caused by genuine grievances; sometimes genuine, pre-existing, grievances are exploited by terrorists for their own ends; sometimes grievances may be perceived rather than real. Yet again, grievances can arise from the measures introduced to counter the terrorist threat: many examples were provided to the Panel (by security officials as well as victims) of States engaging in human rights violations, and thereby feeding and fuelling the very violence they are meant to be curtailing. A commitment to respect human rights on the part of a State could bring to an end any real or alleged grievances; at the very least, such a commitment will secure greater legitimacy for its counterterrorism efforts. 4. Does the contemporary terrorist threat require exceptional responses? The framework of international law, established from 1948 onwards, was intended to give States sufficient flexibility to respond to genuine threats. Since 2001, however, many assert that the contemporary threat from terrorism is of an unprecedented and exceptional nature.22 Several reasons are proffered for this claim. For example, it has been argued that groups like al-Qaeda are international in character; have access to more dangerous technologies of killing (e.g. “dirty” bombs etc.); utilise highly sophisticated communication technologies to carry out attacks and thwart law enforcement measures; have individuals who employ tactics, such as suicide bombing, which require different tactics on the part of law enforcement personnel; and/or have ill-defined, existential, or unrealisable demands, making negotiation difficult. 21 The Panel received evidence directly from victims of terrorism and counter-terrorism in many Hearings – see particularly the Hearings in Northern Africa, Northern Ireland, the Russian Federation (where the Panel heard from victims of the Beslan school and the Moscow north-east theatre sieges), and the US – nearly all seeking truth and accountability. See summary of the EJP Hearings in the Russian Federation, Northern Africa and written submissions by Donald W Goodrich, Families of September 11, and by Adele Welty, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, EJP United States Hearing. 22 See, for example, written submission by the Government of the United Kingdom and Home Office, Background briefing papers on the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Bill submitted to the Panel, EJP United Kingdom Hearing.