Assessing Damage, Urging Action The Panel received extensive evidence to the effect that the justification of “unprecedented” threats have frequently been called on in the past to justify human rights violations; that temporary measures often become permanent; and that it is extremely difficult to re-institute human rights protections once lost. Victims of terrorist and State abuses, non-governmental organisations, practising lawyers, senior officials all testified to the reality of terrorism and the need to counter any such threats. It is not, however, acceptable that the horrors of 9/11, and other major terrorist acts that were the subject of testimony to the Panel in the course of its Hearings, should lead to further horrors, with some States condoning kidnapping and torture by way of response. The Panel was shocked to find some State officials who fail to counter serious allegations of human rights violations, but rather argue that such tactics (albeit with sanitised and euphemistic labels), are legitimate instruments of State security policy, and are essential to counter the terrorist threat. Even when States foreswore such tactics themselves, they were at times actively complicit in the wrongdoing of others, or at the very least fell silent and failed to mobilise the international community in expressing its outrage. At the turn of the millennium, there was a clear international consensus on the nature of human dignity, the rights that flowed from that central premise, and the total illegality and unacceptability of practices such as torture. Seven years on from the tragedy of 9/11, it is time to take stock and re-affirm those basic principles. Much damage has been done to the international legal framework in these few short years. Priority must be given to actively undoing the grave harm that has been caused. It is time for change. 25