A/HRC/22/26 46. The abolition, in some jurisdictions, of exceptional courts for trial of terrorist suspects in favour of addressing crimes of terrorism through regular systems of criminal justice was noted as a good practice experience. In several countries, the abolition of exceptional courts had been possible, and had increased public confidence both in the ability of the Government to address the problem of terrorism and in the fairness of criminal cases against terrorists in the regular courts. The abolition of such courts also avoided a tendency to resort to such jurisdictions in broader circumstances than had been originally contemplated. For the same reasons, caution was counselled in establishing exceptional jurisdictions in the first place. Rather, strengthening of the ordinary judicial system should be prioritized, and best international practices to be drawn upon in that respect were increasingly available. Where the regular criminal justice system is considered to be inadequate to meet the challenges of trying terrorist cases, efforts should be made to strengthen these rather than to establish special courts. Resort to the trial of civilians in military or special courts should be exceptional and should be limited to cases where the State can show that it is necessary and justified by objective and serious reasons, and where with regard to the specific class of individuals and offences at issue, the regular civilian courts are unable to undertake the trials. Accountability and the rights of victims 47. Discussions at the regional expert symposia highlighted the critical importance of accountability for human rights violations in the counter-terrorism context. The absence of accountability does harm to victims, to the rule of law, and to the ability of States to influence the promotion and protection of human rights in other jurisdictions and thus to avoid establishing conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism and to radicalization. This includes the need for States to conduct prompt, independent, impartial and thorough investigations wherever there is credible evidence to suggest there have been violations of human rights in the counter-terrorism context. 48. Where investigations result in establishing that a violation has occurred, victims must be afforded effective redress. This should include payment of compensation to individuals who have been denied due process, particularly in cases of excessive pretrial detention and other abuses. While acknowledging that national practices in the area of compensation varied widely, participants agreed that payment of compensation by the State in circumstances where due process had been denied was a particularly effective form of redress and one that went a long way to preventing the fostering of resentment amongst aggrieved individuals and their families as a result of unfair or even illegal practices. In some sense, payment of compensation could be seen as an investment in future stability by recognizing State fault and providing a concrete form of remedy. Alongside such payments, care also needed to be taken to ensure that necessary legal reforms to avoid repeat cases of breaches of due process were also implemented in a timely fashion, seen as an essential element of the guarantee of non-recurrence. 49. The regional expert symposia highlighted the importance of oversight processes, adequate checks and balances, and effective complaints mechanisms as essential for accountability. Participants pointed out that while there are a number of different ways to work towards accountability in the counter-terrorism context, common elements in successful strategies include credible oversight processes (including in legislatures), complaint processes that are accessible to individuals, who can resort to them without fear of retaliation, and distribution of powers and competencies across different entities and structures in a system of “checks and balances” in order to avoid undue concentration of “normalization” or de facto permanent existence of extraordinary measures. […].” 15