A/HRC/21/9 spirit. The United Kingdom believed it was for States to lead the way in establishing best practice and hoped to work with others to achieve this. The Government had consulted broadly with civil society in all four nations of the United Kingdom and had engaged them in a frank and constructive discussion. The United Kingdom said information on the implementation of recommendations from the first round was in its national report. 8. The Coalition Government was firmly committed to promoting and protecting human rights and in its Programme for Government had reaffirmed its commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Government had established a Commission on a Bill of Rights to provide an opportunity to review how best to enshrine the Convention into domestic law, protecting and extending British liberties. The Commission was due to report by the end of 2012. 9. The United Kingdom Government was committed to the effective operation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and therefore proud of the substantial reform package achieved last month in the Brighton Declaration, under its Chairmanship of the Council of Europe. The purpose of the reform was to ensure that more cases were resolved at the national level enabling the Court to focus more quickly on more important cases and helping it to better address the abuse of human rights in Europe. 10. Referring to questions posed by Norway and Sweden about pre-charge detention, terrorism prevention and investigation measures and the policy of deportation of terrorist suspects, the United Kingdom said that the first duty of any Government was to protect life and secure prosperity for all its people. It was essential that the various arms of the State had the powers and ability to meet threats from terrorism but was equally necessary for the British justice system to be able to administer justice in a way that safeguards civil liberties and human rights. The United Kingdom acknowledged that reconciling the demands of these two fundamentally important objectives is one of its greatest challenges. 11. The United Kingdom said it had recently undertaken a review of six of its counterterrorism powers to ensure a correct balance between the State’s security powers and civil liberties. As a result, the maximum period for pre-charge detention had been reduced from 28 to 14 days. To deal with exceptional circumstances, the review recommended publication of draft fast-track legislation which could be introduced where more than 14 days might be necessary. It would be a matter for Parliament to agree whether the maximum period could be extended to 28 days and a matter for a court to decide whether it was necessary in each individual case. The review had also concluded that control orders should be replaced by a system of terrorism prevention and investigation measures (TPIM). A TPIM notice can only be imposed if the statutory tests for its imposition have been met – including that the individual is reasonably believed to be involved in terrorism-related activity and that it is necessary to protect the public from a risk of terrorism. There was an automatic, in-depth review of the Secretary of State’s decision to impose the TPIM notice by the High Court. The court considered the necessity and proportionality of each measure and its compliance with the ECHR. The court also ensures protection of the individual’s right to a fair hearing in accordance with article 6. 12. The United Kingdom said it would not deport a terrorist suspect where there were substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk the individual will face torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. However, they believed that Governmentto-Government assurances are a valid way of achieving its aim of protecting the public in accordance with international obligations. Arrangements are in place to verify that assurances are respected and in its ruling on Abu Qatada, the European Court of Human Rights has found that the United Kingdom’s policy is compatible with article 3, the prohibition of torture. 4