A/HRC/6/17 page 9 adopted.11 The Council’s initiatives on counter-terrorism measures are built on three pillars: strengthening legal action against terrorism; safeguarding fundamental values; and addressing the causes of terrorism. These priorities are based on the fundamental principle that it is both possible and necessary to combat terrorism while respecting human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. 27. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism in 2002, supplemented in 2005 by guidelines on the protection of victims of terrorist acts. These guidelines focus on civil and political rights and set out clearly the strict limitations on the power of States to derogate from international human rights instruments. In these guidelines, reference to economic rights is made in section XIV on the right to property: “The use of the property of persons or organisations suspected of terrorist activities may be suspended or limited, notably by such measures as freezing orders or seizures, by the relevant authorities. The owners of the property have the possibility to challenge the lawfulness of such decisions before a court.”12 28. The European Court of Human Rights has released several judgements which refer to counter-terrorism measures and their negative impact on human rights, including those related to economic and social rights. The cases considered mainly deal with the burning of villages and internal displacement of persons in South-Eastern Turkey in the context of the measures by the security forces against the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (PKK), designated by the authorities as a terrorist organization. In the case of Akdivar and Others v. Turkey,13 the Court considered the burning of nine houses in the village of Kelekci and the eviction of all its inhabitants on 10 November 1992 during a search for PKK terrorists. The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the deliberate burning of the applicants’ homes and their contents constitutes at the same time a serious interference with the right to respect for their family lives and homes and with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions”.14 The Court concluded that there had been a violation of both article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (private and family life and home) and article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions). 29. Another illustrative case is Dogan and Others v. Turkey.15 The applicants lived in Boydaş village, Hozat district. The majority of the village population was of Kurdish origin. In October 1994, the applicants were forcibly evicted from their village and security forces destroyed their houses. As a result of the eviction, the applicants were forced to live in very poor conditions. The Court held that there had been a violation of article 1 of Protocol 1. The Court 11 See the Council of Europe legal affairs web page at www.coe.int/legal/. 12 See www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Files/Themes/terrorism/CM_Guidelines_20020628.asp. 13 Application No. 21893/93, judgement of 16 September 1996, 1996-IV. 14 Ibid., para. 88. 15 Applications Nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, judgement of 29 June 2004, 2004-VI.