A/HRC/30/64 exclusion and lack of participation in political life and the conduct of public affairs and socioeconomic marginalization. Those problems were often compounded by a lack of accountability – with impunity of perpetrators prevailing in many situations –, a lack of access to justice and a remedy for victims of human rights violations and abuses. The Deputy High Commissioner emphasized that, in that context, States had the primary responsibility for investigating and, where evidence warranted, prosecuting the perpetrators of violations in full compliance with international norms, in particular those regarding due process and fair trial. 7. Through the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the General Assembly in September 2006 (see General Assembly resolution 60/288), Member States had agreed a holistic, integrated and effective approach to counter terrorism, with human rights and rule of law as its basis. The Deputy High Commissioner noted, however, that the Strategy had not yet translated into uniform practice on the ground. She also noted that measures taken by a number of States in the wake of recent security threats continued to raise serious human rights concerns. In line with the Strategy and international law, regular review of counter-terrorism laws and practices was critical to ensure that they are human rights-compliant and, in particular, specific, necessary, effective and proportionate. The Deputy High Commissioner recalled that such review was particularly important given that some States had enacted broadly formulated counter-terrorism legislation that did not comply with the principle of legality because it lacked sufficiently precise definitions of what constituted terrorist acts. The breadth and scope of that type of legislation allowed for arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by authorities. The application of the death penalty to broadly construed terrorism-related offences also remained a serious concern, especially where such offences did not rise to the level of “most serious crimes”, the threshold required by article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Deputy High Commissioner also noted that some States sought to bypass the criminal justice system by using administrative detention, other forms of detention and control orders on persons suspected of terrorism, without respecting the safeguards enshrined in international law. Such laws had been used to curb otherwise legitimate activities and to target journalists, human rights defenders, minority groups and other individuals, some of whom had been arbitrarily detained and tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman and dehumanizing treatment or punishment while in custody. 8. Noting that the rights to freedom of opinion and expression constitute the foundation for every free and democratic society, the Deputy High Commissioner discussed the relationship between counter-terrorism laws and those rights. In accordance with international human rights law, any restriction on freedom of expression must be clearly and narrowly defined and must meet the three-part test of legality, proportionality and necessity. Offences such as “encouragement of terrorism”, “extremist activity”, “praising” “glorifying” or “justifying” terrorism must be clearly defined so as not to interfere unnecessarily and disproportionately with freedom of expression. 9. Lastly, the Deputy High Commissioner recalled that experience at the national level showed that protecting human rights and ensuring respect for the rule of law contributed to countering terrorism, in particular by creating a climate of trust between the State and those under its jurisdiction and by supporting the resilience of communities to threats of violent radicalism. Conversely, undue restrictions on human rights had proven corrosive to the rule of law and conducive to a climate of impunity and might therefore undermine the effectiveness of counter-terrorism measures. It was time to stop basing policy on the false dichotomy between security and human rights, which, she emphasized, were complementary and mutually reinforcing. States should focus on policies and initiatives that increase the enjoyment of all rights — not just civil and political rights, but also economic, social and cultural rights. Swiftly addressing actual or perceived marginalization or exclusion of particular communities was crucial. 3