Assessing Damage, Urging Action Hearings said that the very notions of “terrorist” and “terrorism” obfuscated, rather than helped. The use of such language tended to hinder rather than facilitate the search for solutions, since it often failed to do justice to the underlying complexity of the situation, including grievances and political dimensions.67 Indeed, attaching such labels to the tactics, strategies and objectives of the protagonists was often deliberately intended to alienate and demonise them. As a short-term solution, this may seem attractive; over the longer term, experience showed that such labelling makes dialogue, negotiation and resolution of conflict extremely difficult. Examples from the past show that human rights are at particular risk when States allow national security considerations to take precedence over the rule of law. One of the most serious shortcomings, reported from many jurisdictions, was the tendency of the authorities to broaden discretionary powers, without ensuring corresponding forms of accountability. States have often used the seriousness of risk – and the heightened level of fear in the general populace – to accrue more powers. Sometimes this increase in power might be objectively justified, but even in such cases, there is no obvious excuse for not increasing the role of oversight and accountability structures in monitoring the new situation. All the experience of the past is that, when the risk from terrorism is at its greatest, accountability is at its most necessary. In the words of the then Argentinean Minister of Justice, Alberto Iribarne, his country has learnt, at great human cost that “security, without respect for human rights, does not exist.” 68 Only effective accountability can ensure that counter-terrorism measures stay within the rule of law, and of all the accountability options (and there are many), access to an independent judiciary is absolutely essential. Suspect communities Past experience suggests that States target particular communities with counterterrorism laws and other measures. Discriminatory measures are particularly likely in situations where the terrorist threat is perceived to result from within a particular minority community, or where terrorist acts are committed as part of an underlying ethnic or national conflict. The discriminatory targeting or marginalising of certain groups is both legally wrong (discrimination is outlawed in all major international human rights treaties), and has often proved counter-productive. Measures perceived to target members of particular communities risk implicating innocent individuals, Peru, op. cit. 67 See in particular the information received in the EJP South Asia Hearing in relation to Sri Lanka. Witnesses explained that condemning as terrorists those who support similar political goals to the LTTE, rather than the terrorist tactics and strategies themselves, inhibits public debate, silences dissent within the affected community, and even promotes solidarity with those who are engaged in terrorist activities. 68 See Press Release of the Ministry of Justice, “Security and Human Rights”, 13 November 2006, issued at the conclusion of the EJP Southern Cone Hearing. 43