A/HRC/30/64 with international law, in particular the right to freedom of expression. They also noted the impact that counter-terrorism measures could have on human rights, including the prohibition of torture and arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial. The need to comply with the principles of distinction and proportionality in armed conflict under international humanitarian law was also stressed. Those were all principles that needed to be adhered to when preventing terrorism. 39. Many delegates highlighted the complementarity between security and human rights, while acknowledging that current State practices often mistakenly pitted the two principles against one another. One delegate, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said that States must ensure that their actions complied with the Charter of the United Nations, international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international refugee law, by protecting their populations while ensuring fair trials for persons accused of having committed terrorist acts, as well as assisting victims. Another delegate considered that antiterrorism strategies should safeguard rights and freedoms, while yet another stressed the importance of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and of States becoming parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional Protocol. 40. One delegate said that States should deny safe haven to those who incited, planned, financed, supported or committed terrorist attacks. Another delegate noted that, despite United Nations resolutions to combat terrorism over the previous two decades, certain terrorist organizations continued to be financed, including by States, and that that practice must be stopped. One delegate stated that robust and decisive measures needed to be taken in that regard, not only by the countries affected, but also by the international community as a whole. It suggested that the international community commission comprehensive studies on the origins, motives and funding of terrorist groups. 41. Several participants called for all terrorist acts to be punished and for a holistic approach to countering terrorism that required expanding the scope of legal instruments to bring the perpetrators of terrorist acts to justice. In response to questions regarding the responsibility of States to protect populations against widespread and systematic human rights violations by non-State armed groups, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism stressed that accountability must be ensured on both sides of the equation and that public officials engaged in counter-terrorism activities must be brought to justice. With regard to accountability for violations of the rights of victims of terrorism perpetrated by non-State armed groups, the Special Rapporteur stated that, although the Security Council had declared ISIL a threat to international peace and security and had stressed the need to bring perpetrators to justice, it had been very reluctant to authorize military action pursuant to its powers under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations or to refer the situation in Iraq and Syrian Arab Republic to the International Criminal Court. He added that the Security Council resolution putting ISIL on the list of terrorist organizations would not prevent it from continuing to commit human rights abuses. The Special Rapporteur also underlined that the time had come to recognize that the permanent members of the Security Council had an obligation to act and that, in the event of reports of genocide, all members of the Council, individually, may have a specific legal responsibility to take action and to refrain from using their veto power to block action to prevent that most serious of international crimes. 42. The Chief of the Implementation Support Section III of UNODC Terrorism Prevention Branch stated that concrete efforts should be made to prevent terrorism, including adhering to the rule of law, which contributed to avoiding radicalization. He recalled that measures to criminalize incitement and recruitment must be fully compatible with the principle of legality. Such measures often relied on intelligence and circumstantial 10