A/HRC/43/46 “extremism” – a direct challenge to the integrity and implementation of the United Nations due diligence policy. 50. The Special Rapporteur continues to underscore that the human rights resources supplied to account for, benchmark or engage in preventing and countering violent extremism are meagre and vastly insufficient to respond to the scale of the human rights challenge. The scale of the programming alone requires sustained, structured and well-resourced human rights oversight and capacity. A part-time Special Rapporteur with no resources is clearly an insufficient human rights bulwark, as are the limited administrative and financial resources given to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for the scale, breadth and substance of that programming and policy. 51. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the invitation of the Human Rights Council, in its resolution 42/18, to reflect on the effects of terrorism in her work, and she continues to reflect in a considered way on how to do so substantively. She notes her ongoing sustained and structured engagement with regard to the rights of victims of terrorism. In the interim, she recalls what she has stated on the subject in her previous report.99 In addition, the Special Rapporteur notes that, having reviewed a draft of the report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee requested by the Council in its resolution 34/8, on the negative effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights, the Special Rapporteur observed that it relied on fundamentally flawed legal analysis concerning the application of human rights law and practice. It contains a range of legal inaccuracies and a number of inconsistencies that appear incompatible with the existing consensus of States on the scope of the application of international human rights law. Working within existing resources, she plans to reflect and pronounce further on the matter. VII. Conclusions and recommendations 52. The Special Rapporteur makes the following recommendations: (a) All aspects of States national security practice, including those aimed at preventing or countering violent extremism, must comply with international human rights law; preventing and countering violent extremism must never be used to stifle peaceful political dissidence, criticism or non-violent protest or serve as a basis for prosecuting individuals engaged in non-violent expression and advocacy; the absolute right to freedom of religious belief must be respected at all times; religious practice must be protected and never be criminalized; (b) States that regulate “extremism” in their laws, policy, programmes or practice should repeal such provisions, which have no purchase in international law, and domestic law must comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality; (c) States are encouraged to engage with the broader conditions conducive to violent extremism and terrorism, including weak governance, human rights violations, poor rule of law and corruption; only sustained engagement with the complexity of those conditions will fruitfully address violent extremism; (d) All United Nations entities engaged in programming aimed at the prevention and countering of violent extremism must ensure that their practices and programmes are both compliant with international human rights law and the due diligence policies of the United Nations; those obligations are real and must be adequately overseen, particularly by entities engaged in substantial and sustained programming aimed at the prevention and countering of violent extremism, including the Office of CounterTerrorism, UNODC, UN-Women and UNESCO; (e) States must ensure that policies and programmes aimed at preventing violent extremism are evidence-based and scientifically sound and should establish rigorous, systematic and independent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for such policies 99 18 A/HRC/40/52, para. 29.