24 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights Whilst some witnesses to the Panel emphasised the truly unprecedented nature of the current terrorist threat, others spoke of important parallels between current and past terrorist and counter-terrorist experiences. Whether the threat is exceptional or not, the Panel heard no persuasive evidence that the tried-and-tested framework of international law was inadequate. In other words, it is irrelevant for immediate purposes to determine if there is one terrorist threat or multiple threats, or if this threat is quantatively or qualitatively different to past threats. Suffice to say that in different parts of the world terrorism poses a real and substantial threat needing to be effectively countered in accordance with international law. The Panel is worried, however, that some of the counter-terrorist responses do not accord with international law and themselves also pose a threat to individuals, communities, and to a number of deeply-held values. Some governments seem to have decided that the threat of terrorism justifies exceptional responses that are at risk of seriously undermining the rule of law. The legal framework explicitly negotiated to ensure international, national, and personal security is under attack. The Panel is unanimous that no adequate justification was provided to them for this roll-back in protection. Moreover, the Panel believes that the discourse on terrorism has led, in some instances, to stoking a climate of fear in which minority groups and human rights defenders, in particular, are marginalised. The space for public dialogue should be extended, but instead is being restricted. When governments insist on being trusted, and rely upon this trust to introduce ever-more invasive measures to counter terrorism without providing a sober and proportionate assessment of the threat, they unwittingly reinforce the very goal of terrorism, and instil fear in the public. The report looks at these counter-terrorism responses in more detail. Separate chapters examine lessons from the past; attempts to apply a war paradigm to the current terrorist threat; changes to the role of intelligence in countering terrorism; preventive measures and the potential of the criminal justice system to respond effectively to terrorism. The unanimous conclusion of the Panel, having examined all the material submitted to it, is that the international legal framework that existed prior to 9/11 is extremely robust and effective. 5. Conclusions: human rights The Panel concludes that international human rights law was elaborated precisely to guarantee people’s safety, and that this framework allows those concerns to be accommodated by way of a system of limitation clauses and by making provision, in genuine emergencies, for the temporary suspension of some rights. The current legal framework is sufficiently adaptable to counter any current threats or future threats. for their counter measures.