The convergence of counter-terrorism law and human rights is one of the most difficult topics in modern legal discourse. As states grapple with the changing nature of terrorism—characterized by asymmetrical warfare, non-state actors, and digital radicalization—legal systems are increasingly tasked with reconciling national security imperatives with the protection of constitutionally and internationally guaranteed civil liberties.

A crucial legal question arises: to what extent may states constitutionally limit individual rights in the name of collective security, and what safeguards are in place to prevent such restrictions from being abused?

The jurisprudence of constitutional courts, international human rights organizations, and statutory frameworks such as emergency powers legislation and anti-terror laws demonstrate the tension between state sovereignty in ensuring security and the inviolability of fundamental rights such as liberty, privacy, and due process.

Notably, measures such as preventive detention, monitoring regimes, organizational proscription, and control orders frequently operate in legally ambiguous territory, raising issues about proportionality, accountability, and the possible normalization of extraordinary powers.

This article critically explores the legal principles guiding counter-terrorism measures, the breadth of permitted limitations on rights under international human rights law, and the judiciary's role in maintaining constitutional balance. Through comparative analysis and case law review, it seeks to analyze how legal regimes may strike a principled balance between combating terrorism and preserving the rule of law.

Understanding Terrorism's Effect on State Policy

Terrorism, as a legal and political phenomenon, poses one of the most serious dangers to modern governance, national security, and the rule of law. It is marked by the intentional use of violence—often indiscriminate—against civilians or symbolic targets to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals. Despite its global relevance, there is no universally accepted legal definition of terrorism. The Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), proposed in 1996 at the UN, remains unadopted due to disagreements over legitimate resistance and state-sponsored violence.

Legal and Policy Consequences of Definitional Ambiguity:

• Broad anti-terror laws often encompass acts of civil dissent or political opposition.
• Examples include the use of anti-terror laws against human rights activists and journalists, especially in parts of Asia and the Middle East.
• Amnesty International and UN Special Rapporteurs have consistently warned against such overreach.

Post-9/11 Policy Shifts:

• USA: The USA PATRIOT Act (2001) expanded surveillance and extraterritorial reach.
• India: The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has been amended to broaden the scope of terrorism and enable extended detention without trial.
• UK: The Terrorism Acts of 2000 and 2006 introduced control orders, asset freezes, and organizational bans.

Securitization and Normalization of Emergency Measures:

• Following the 2015 Paris attacks, France's prolonged state of emergency led to lasting changes in its criminal code.
• This blurring of emergency and normal law challenges democratic accountability.

Human Rights Implications:

• Treaties like the ICCPR (Article 4) and ECHR (Article 15) permit derogations only under strict conditions:
  • Official declaration
  • Proportionality
  • Non-discrimination
  • Consistency with other international obligations

Impact on Immigration and Minority Rights:

• Security concerns have shaped exclusionary immigration policies such as:
  • US "travel bans"
  • EU refugee restrictions
  • India's Citizenship Amendment Act (2019)

Terrorism thus catalyzes a recalibration of liberty and security, raising the foundational constitutional question: how far may a state go in restricting rights without undermining democratic norms?

National Security as a Justification for Rights Restriction

States have historically invoked national security to justify restricting civil liberties, especially during emergencies. However, such measures must be balanced against legal standards of necessity, proportionality, and legality.

International Law:

• The ICCPR permits limited rights restrictions (Articles 12, 19, 22), provided they are:
  • Lawful
  • Necessary
  • Proportionate to a legitimate aim
• Article 4 allows derogations during public emergencies that "threaten the life of the nation," subject to:
  • Official declaration
  • Strict necessity
  • Time-bound application
  • Non-discrimination

Indian Constitutional Framework:

• Article 19 permits "reasonable restrictions" for state security and public order.
• Early Supreme Court cases like A.K. Gopalan (1950) and ADM Jabalpur (1976) deferred to the executive, but Maneka Gandhi (1978) recalibrated the doctrine in favor of due process and fairness.

Concerns with Broad Security Powers:

• In India, UAPA provisions enable:
  • Detention without charge for extended periods
  • Designation of individuals as terrorists without trial

Comparative Case Law:

• UK: A v. Secretary of State (2004) invalidated indefinite detention of foreign suspects.
• ECHR: In Klass v. Germany (1978), the Court upheld limited surveillance with safeguards.
• These cases underscore that security concerns cannot override human rights protections arbitrarily.

Digital Age Concerns:

• Mass surveillance, internet shutdowns, and AI-based monitoring have raised proportionality and transparency concerns globally.
• The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy warns against normalization of disproportionate surveillance.

Legal Framework under International Law

1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

   • Permits rights limitations (Articles 12, 19, 21, 22) if:
     • Prescribed by law
     • Necessary and proportionate
     • Serve legitimate aims (e.g., national security)
   • Article 4 Derogation Conditions:
     • Public emergency must be officially declared.
     • Measures must be temporary, necessary, and proportionate.
     • Non-derogable rights include:
       • Right to life (Art. 6)
       • Freedom from torture (Art. 7)
       • Freedom from slavery (Art. 8)
     • No discrimination in application
   • General Comment No. 29 (Human Rights Committee):
     • Derogation cannot justify systemic violations.
     • States must justify derogatory actions.
        

2. The Siracusa Principles (1984)

   • Guidelines for interpreting ICCPR limitations and derogations:
     • Security threats must be real and direct.
     • Rights must not be hollowed out.
     • Emergency measures must not be permanent.
     • Suppression of dissent under the guise of security is impermissible.
        

3. Regional Human Rights Instruments

   • European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):
     • Article 15 allows derogations during emergencies.
     • Key Cases:
       • A v. United Kingdom (2009): Indefinite detention was discriminatory.
       • Klass v. Germany (1978): Surveillance upheld with safeguards.
   • American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR):
     • Article 27 allows derogations, with ICCPR-aligned restrictions.
        

4. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Customary Law

   • Applicable in Armed Conflict (Geneva Conventions):
     • Prohibits torture, arbitrary detention, and collective punishment.
     • Upholds distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.
   • Customary International Law and Jus Cogens:
     • Prohibit torture and extrajudicial killing, even during emergencies.
        

5. United Nations Security Council Resolutions

   • Resolution 1373 (2001):
     • Requires states to criminalize terrorism, freeze assets, and improve cooperation.
     • Must be implemented in accordance with human rights obligations.
     • Monitored by the UN Human Rights Council and Special Rapporteur on Human Rights while Countering Terrorism.

Challenges to Human Rights in Counter-Terrorism:

While counter-terrorism is undoubtedly a legitimate and necessary objective of the State, its implementation frequently leads to serious human rights violations. These violations are not merely episodic or attributable to emergency situations, but often stem from structural deficiencies such as executive overreach, discriminatory enforcement, and the erosion of fundamental procedural safeguards. The subsections below examine key human rights concerns implicated in contemporary counter-terrorism regimes.

Right to Due Process and a Fair Trial

The right to a fair trial is a fundamental tenet of democratic constitutionalism and is enshrined in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and regional human rights frameworks. However, counter-terrorism laws routinely derogate from these guarantees in the following ways:

• Prolonged Pre-Charge Detention and Delayed Trials: Statutes such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in India permit detention for up to 180 days without formal charges, far exceeding conventional norms in criminal justice. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), the Supreme Court upheld certain provisions of anti-terror legislation while underscoring the need for procedural safeguards.
   
• Use of Secret Evidence and In-Camera Proceedings: Tribunals such as the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) in the United Kingdom permit the use of closed evidence, inaccessible to the accused. Such practices undermine core principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem and equality of arms.
   
• Restricted Access to Legal Counsel: Particularly under security or military legislation, accused persons often face delays or denials in accessing legal representation.
   
• International Oversight: The United Nations Human Rights Committee has consistently raised alarms about the compatibility of indefinite or prolonged detention under security laws with international human rights standards.

These derogations demand close scrutiny to ensure that the imperatives of national security do not eclipse the foundational tenets of rule of law.

Freedom of Expression and Association

Counter-terrorism laws are increasingly being used to suppress political dissent, restrict media freedom, and curtail the functioning of civil society:

• Criminalisation of Dissent: Broad and ambiguous definitions of "terrorist activity" allow authorities to conflate legitimate protest and activism with incitement to violence. In Zargar v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court cautioned against such misuse, stating that "the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity must not be blurred."
• Suppression of the Press and Whistleblowers: Journalists and civil society actors reporting on state excesses or conflict zones have faced arrest under anti-terrorism statutes. Post-2016 purges in Turkey exemplify how such laws can be wielded to stifle dissenting voices and academic freedom.
• Proscription of Organisations: Legal provisions enabling the proscription of organisations on vague security grounds often lack adequate judicial oversight or sunset clauses. Article 22 of the ICCPR mandates that any restriction on freedom of association must meet the tests of necessity and proportionality.
• Chilling Effect: The looming threat of surveillance, arrest, or prosecution discourages public participation and civil mobilisation, thus constraining the democratic space essential for political accountability.

States must ensure that counter-terrorism measures do not transform into instruments of authoritarian suppression.

Right to Privacy and Surveillance Concerns

Technological advances have enabled intrusive forms of state surveillance, often with inadequate legal oversight. These developments raise significant privacy concerns:

• Mass Surveillance Infrastructure: Post-9/11 intelligence-sharing arrangements such as PRISM (USA) and Tempora (UK) facilitated bulk data collection with minimal regulatory control. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in Schrems I and Schrems II, invalidated transatlantic data transfer regimes due to insufficient privacy protections.
• Facial Recognition and Biometric Tracking: These technologies are increasingly used in public demonstrations and urban surveillance without robust legal safeguards, disproportionately impacting minority communities.
• Indian Context: Despite the passage of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, concerns about unchecked surveillance persist. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right, but national security exceptions continue to permit broad surveillance powers.
• International Norms: The Necessary and Proportionate Principles, endorsed by UN agencies and civil society, recommend judicial oversight, narrowly tailored legal frameworks, and data minimisation practices.

Surveillance regimes must be subjected to rigorous legal scrutiny to preserve individual autonomy and uphold democratic accountability.
 

Discrimination and Minority Profiling

Counter-terrorism enforcement often results in discriminatory practices targeting religious, ethnic, or socio-economic minorities:

• Racial and Religious Profiling: Following 9/11, Muslim communities in the United States and Europe were subjected to extensive monitoring, mosque surveillance, and travel restrictions. In response to criticism, the NYPD disbanded its Demographics Unit, which had engaged in indiscriminate surveillance of Muslim neighbourhoods.
   
• Indian Context: Empirical studies by organisations such as PUCL and NHRC reveal that individuals from Muslim, Dalit, and Adivasi communities are disproportionately represented among those detained under counter-terrorism laws such as the UAPA.
   
• International Jurisprudence: The Human Rights Committee has condemned state actions that result in de facto discrimination under the guise of security. In S.A.S. v. France (2014), while the European Court of Human Rights upheld a ban on face coverings, dissenting opinions highlighted its stigmatising impact on religious minorities.
   
• UN Special Procedures: Special Rapporteurs have emphasised that counter-terrorism laws must not reinforce structural biases such as casteism, Islamophobia, or xenophobia.

Policies rooted in collective suspicion fracture community trust and impair the legitimacy and effectiveness of counter-terrorism efforts.

Judicial Balancing of Security and Civil Liberties

The judiciary plays a pivotal role in mediating the complex tension between safeguarding fundamental rights and meeting the imperatives of national security. Domestic and international courts function as constitutional sentinels, ensuring that counter-terrorism measures conform to the principles of the rule of law, proportionality, and international human rights obligations.

Indian Judiciary

In India, the judiciary has exhibited a nuanced approach—on one hand, endorsing stringent counter-terror frameworks, and on the other, reinforcing constitutional liberties through corrective interpretation.

Endorsement of Stringent Measures

• The Supreme Court has previously upheld expansive counter-terror laws while emphasizing procedural safeguards. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), the Court upheld the constitutionality of the now-repealed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), while underscoring the necessity for safeguards against coerced confessions and mandating in-camera proceedings to preserve fairness.
• Similarly, in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003), the Court acknowledged the validity of telephone tapping under exceptional circumstances, but emphasized the requirement of oversight mechanisms to curb arbitrary state surveillance.
   

Emergence of Rights-Based Correctives

• In Zargar v. State of NCT Delhi (2021), the Delhi High Court cautioned against conflating dissent with terrorism, stating that the invocation of UAPA against student protesters was disproportionate and unjustified.
• In K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court granted bail under UAPA, holding that indefinite incarceration without a foreseeable trial date violated the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
   

Challenges in Enforcement

Despite progressive jurisprudence, courts have often displayed judicial deference in matters involving national security. Under statutes such as the UAPA and the National Security Act (NSA), bail continues to be rarely granted, and courts have been hesitant to strike down broadly worded provisions that may be prone to misuse. Additionally, the prevalence of prolonged undertrial detentions and trial delays undermines the efficacy of judicial safeguards and infringes upon the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21.
 

International and Regional Jurisprudence

International and regional human rights courts have been instrumental in scrutinizing the human rights implications of counter-terrorism policies.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

• In A and Others v. United Kingdom (2009), the ECtHR held that the indefinite detention of foreign terrorism suspects without charge violated Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to liberty and security).
• In S.A.S. v. France (2014), the Court upheld a nationwide ban on full-face coverings in public, citing public order concerns. However, dissenting opinions warned that such measures risk stigmatizing Muslim women and legitimizing indirect discrimination under the guise of national security.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

• The Inter-American Court has firmly opposed the use of military tribunals and suspension of due process in anti-terror contexts. In Lori Berenson v. Peru (2004), it ruled that trial by military courts and denial of fair trial guarantees to alleged terrorists violated the American Convention on Human Rights.

United Nations Human Rights Mechanisms

• UN treaty bodies, particularly the Human Rights Committee, have repeatedly expressed concern over the use of overly broad security laws, indefinite detention, and profiling based on race or religion. The Committee has emphasized that any derogation under Article 4 of the ICCPR must be narrowly tailored, evidence-based, and subject to stringent review.

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights

• The African Commission has underscored that national security cannot serve as a blanket justification for suppressing dissent, especially in post-conflict or authoritarian states. It has advocated for anti-terror laws to conform to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, which prohibits discrimination and affirms the indivisibility of rights.

UN Standards and International Human Rights Law

Efforts to combat terrorism must be grounded in the principles of international human rights law. While national security is a legitimate state objective, it cannot supersede the obligation to uphold fundamental rights. The international legal framework—comprising binding treaties, soft law instruments, and institutional guidelines—provides normative safeguards to ensure that counter-terrorism measures remain lawful, proportionate, and rights-compliant.

Core Treaties and Normative Frameworks

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
The ICCPR remains a cornerstone of global human rights protection, preserving civil and political liberties even during emergencies. Article 4 permits derogations in times of public emergency that threaten the life of the nation; however, such derogations must satisfy strict conditions of legality, necessity, proportionality, and non-discrimination. Certain rights—such as:

• The right to life (Article 6),
• The prohibition of torture (Article 7), and
• Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18)

are non-derogable. The UN Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 29 has warned against states enacting sweeping or indefinite counter-terrorism measures under the pretext of emergency powers.
Convention Against Torture (CAT)
The CAT prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under any circumstances, including in the context of terrorism investigations. Article 3 enshrines the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting the transfer of individuals to jurisdictions where they risk being subjected to torture, regardless of national security justifications.

UN Soft Law Standards and Resolutions

UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (2006)
Adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly, this strategy emphasizes the integration of human rights into all aspects of counter-terrorism. Its four pillars include:

• Addressing the conditions conducive to terrorism,
• Preventing and combating terrorism,
• Building states' capacity while respecting human rights, and
• Ensuring the rule of law and respect for human rights as the foundation of all counter-terrorism efforts.

It affirms that effective counter-terrorism is inseparable from the protection of rights and the preservation of democratic institutions.

Role of UN Human Rights Mechanisms

UN special procedures have consistently flagged human rights abuses linked to counter-terrorism, including:

• The criminalization of political dissent through overly broad definitions of terrorism,
• Racial and religious profiling under the guise of national security,
• Extraordinary rendition, secret detention, and targeted killings without oversight.

Mandates such as the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, as well as bodies like the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, play a critical role in monitoring compliance and advocating corrective action. Moreover, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) conducted by the UN Human Rights Council offers a regular forum for peer review and recommendations on states' adherence to human rights standards in their counter-terrorism policies.

Moving Toward a Balanced Strategy

In the global fight against terrorism, it is essential that security concerns do not overshadow the fundamental principles of human rights and the rule of law. A successful counterterrorism strategy must be built upon a careful balance between safeguarding civil liberties, ensuring democratic accountability, and maintaining national security.

Strengthening Procedural Protections and the Rule of Law

States must ensure that their counterterrorism laws align with both international and constitutional standards. This requires:

• Judicial oversight of detentions, ensuring that individuals are not held arbitrarily and are afforded expedited trials and access to legal counsel, even in high-security situations.
• Avoiding practices that compromise the legitimacy of legal systems, such as torture, incommunicado detention, or the use of military tribunals for civilian matters.
• Ensuring that definitions of terrorism are clear and narrow, to prevent misuse of laws that could suppress political dissent, restrict media freedom, or curtail civil society participation.
  

Transparent Oversight and Accountability

Effective oversight mechanisms are crucial to maintaining a balance between national security and civil rights. This includes:

• Judicial, parliamentary, and independent oversight of counterterrorism measures to ensure executive power is kept in check.
• Regular audits of intelligence and surveillance activities, including the collection of mass data and profiling, to guarantee compliance with the law and respect for privacy rights.
• Ensuring that victims of counterterrorism measures have access to grievance redressal mechanisms and remedies for abuses.
  

Deradicalization and Community Engagement

To ensure sustainable security, counterterrorism measures must adopt community-based strategies rather than relying solely on coercive methods. This includes:

• Engaging local stakeholders, such as religious leaders, educators, and civil society organizations, to address the root causes of radicalization and promote trust in state institutions.
• Avoiding the profiling of minorities or promoting generalized distrust of certain communities, as these tactics undermine social cohesion and long-term security efforts.
  

Adherence to International Human Rights Law

National counterterrorism policies must respect the non-derogable rights set forth in instruments like the ICCPR and CAT. Domestic laws must:

• Be in alignment with international standards and evolving UN counterterrorism guidelines.
• Ensure that international monitoring and compliance with UN procedures are fully integrated into national frameworks.

Conclusion:
In the fight against terrorism, states face the challenging task of balancing the protection of citizens' rights and liberties with the maintenance of national security. Counterterrorism measures, while essential for safeguarding society, often result in significant human rights concerns, ranging from the criminalization of dissent to prolonged detention and surveillance. This article has illustrated how both national and international legal frameworks play a critical role in safeguarding against the potential abuse of national security laws. According to these frameworks, any deviation from fundamental rights must be justified, necessary, and proportional, in line with international human rights obligations.

Key to preventing national security measures from undermining democratic principles is transparency and judicial oversight. Even in national security contexts, courts play a vital role in defending constitutional rights and ensuring that security measures do not infringe upon essential freedoms. Moreover, international human rights instruments—such as regional treaties and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—continue to gain prominence, reinforcing the principle that states cannot disregard their obligations under the guise of security concerns.

The central challenge lies in designing counterterrorism strategies that effectively address genuine security threats while respecting civil liberties. Transparency, accountability, and adherence to human rights are fundamental in ensuring that states avoid abuses, maintain social cohesion, and secure the long-term legitimacy of their counterterrorism efforts. As we navigate the evolving landscape of security threats, it is crucial that the values of justice, equity, and human dignity remain at the heart of our response to terrorism.

Bibliography:

• Books and Monographs
  • Ackerman, Bruce. The Emergency Constitution. Harvard University Press, 2004.
  • Baum, Lawrence. The Supreme Court and the Political Process. Harvard University Press, 1994.
  • Feldman, David. Terrorism and the Law. Oxford University Press, 2011.
  • Harris, David. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press, 2018.
  • Kerr, Jennifer. National Security and Civil Liberties: The Impact of Anti-Terrorism Legislation. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
  • Mendelsohn, Oliver. Human Rights and Counterterrorism: Law, Politics, and the Global War on Terror. Oxford University Press, 2017.
• Journal Articles
  • Dixon, Martin. "The International Court of Justice and the Law of Self-Defense." European Journal of International Law 15, no. 5 (2004): 551-568.
  • Kommers, Donald P. "Judicial Review and the War on Terror: A Case Study of U.S. Constitutionalism." American Journal of Comparative Law 56, no. 1 (2008): 107-128.
  • Lauterpacht, Elihu. "The Prohibition of Torture: An International Legal Perspective." International & Comparative Law Quarterly 54, no. 2 (2005): 179-208.
  • Nagy, M. E. "Rights vs Security: A Comparative Analysis of Anti-Terrorism Laws." Harvard International Review 28, no. 4 (2007): 23-30.
  • Sullivan, Helen. "Civil Liberties and National Security in Times of Terror: A Comparative Legal Approach." Journal of International Law 11, no. 2 (2009): 254-280.
• Legal Treaties and Documents
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), United Nations, 1966.
  • European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Council of Europe, 1950.
  • Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), United Nations, 1984.
  • United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, United Nations General Assembly, 2006.
  • Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation of Provisions in the ICCPR, United Nations, 1984.
• Court Cases
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 27 (India).
  • ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, 1976 AIR 1207 (India).
  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597 (India).
  • A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2004] UKHL 56 (UK).
  • Klass v. Germany, 2 EHRR 214 (European Court of Human Rights, 1978).
  • S.A.S. v. France, App. No. 43835/11 (European Court of Human Rights, 2014).
  • Lori Berenson v. Peru, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2004.
  • Zargar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2021 SCC Online Del 5262 (India).
• Reports and Working Papers
  • Amnesty International. "Human Rights Under Attack: Counter-Terrorism Laws in Europe." Amnesty International, 2009.
  • Human Rights Watch. "Terrorism and Human Rights: A Global Perspective." Human Rights Watch, 2011.
  • United Nations Human Rights Committee. "General Comment No. 29: Derogations from Provisions of the Covenant during a State of Emergency." United Nations, 2001.
  • UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism. "Report on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism." United Nations, 2017.
• Web Sources
  • United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism. "International Frameworks for Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights." UN.org. Accessed May 2025.
  • European Court of Human Rights. "Case Law: A and Others v. United Kingdom." ECHR.coe.int. Accessed May 2025.
  • Human Rights Watch. "A Decade of US Counter-Terrorism Policies: Human Rights at the Crossroads." hrw.org. Accessed May 2025.