93 See, for example, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa v. Sudan, communications N° 48/90, N° 50/91, N° 52/91, N° 89/93 (paras. 78–80). 94 See “Report submitted by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Hina Jilani” (E/CN.4/2006/95): “so-called security or counterterrorism measures have (…) been used to restrict human rights activities. Human rights defenders and groups have been targeted and subjected to arbitrary actions with the introduction of exceptions to the rule of law and human rights derogations adopted through special security legislation” (para. 52). See also Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). Measures to be adopted by States included freezing the funds of certain entities (para. 1 (c)), preventing certain entities within their territories from making any funds available (para. 1 (d)), refraining from providing any support to certain entities, suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups (para. 2 (a)), preventing the movement of terrorist groups (para. 2 (g)) – all of these measures affect “associations”. 95 See reports of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Hina Jilani (A/59/401 and E/CN.4/2006/95). 96 See A/61/267. 97 See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, N° 26695/95, Judgement of 10 July 1998: “the Court does not rule out that, once founded, the association might, under cover of the aims mentioned in its memorandum of association, have engaged in activities incompatible with those aims. Such a possibility, which the national courts saw as a certainty, could hardly have been belied by any practical action as, having never existed, the association did not have time to take any action” (para. 46). 98 A/59/401, paras. 49, 51–82. 99 See E/CN.4/2005/103, paras. 13–15. 100 See A/61/267, para. 29. 101 See, for example, Human Rights Committee, views on communication N° 453/1991, Coeriel et al. v. the Netherlands, 31 October 1994 (A/50/40 (vol. II), annex X, sect. D). As to the meaning and extent of “private life” see, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Amann v. Switzerland, N° 27798/95, Judgement of 16 February 2000, and Rotaru v. Romania, N° 28341/95, Judgement of 4 May 2000. 102 See article 17 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 8 (2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and article 11 (2) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 103 See Human Rights Committee, views on communication N° 35/1978, AumeeruddyCziffra and Others v. Mauritius, 9 April 1981 (A/36/40, annex XIII, para. 9.2 (b) 2 (i) 8). 104 European Court of Human Rights, Klass v. Germany, N° 5029/71, Judgement of 6 September 1978, para. 50. 105 See, for example, Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation, A Development Co-operation Lens on Terrorist Prevention: Key Entry Points for Action, DAC Guidelines and Reference Series (OECD, 2003), available at www.oecd.org. 55