A/HRC/40/52 criminal prosecution. 79 These measures are often taken administratively. Any ex post judicial recourse can be very difficult. Profound limitations on access to foreign funding have severely restricted the existence of NGOs, which are often wholly dependent on such funding, particularly affecting human rights and women’s organizations. 80 Some laws require NGOs that receive foreign funding to be labelled as “foreign agents”. Such legislation stigmatizes and marginalizes NGOs and delegitimizes their work. 81 Security considerations have been consistently used to justify such measures with no objective verification of the claims made in those justifications. D. Measures that limit various forms of support for terrorism 43. A web of international and national, public and private regulations and requirements is emerging, placing immense pressure on civil society actors, particularly, but not limited to, those operating in areas where terrorist groups are active.82 Qualifying a wide range of acts as impermissible “support for terrorism”, counter-terrorism measures are found in laws that apply extraterritorially as well as in various donor agreements nefariously restricting access to populations in areas controlled by non-State armed groups and support to groups and individuals designated as terrorists. This results in harassment, arrest and prosecution of humanitarian, human rights and other civil society actors. 44. This typically affects life-saving humanitarian activities, including food and medical assistance. 83 The Secretary-General has noted that States must not impede efforts by humanitarian organizations to engage armed groups in order to seek improved protection for civilians – even those groups that are proscribed in some national legislation. 84 Material support provisions may also affect the work of civil society involved in supporting, inter alia, fact-finding and evidence gathering for the purpose of prosecution, promoting the right to development or providing assistance to migrants. E. Indiscriminate legislation choking civil society 45. Emboldened by pervasive security rhetoric, the past few years have seen the emergence of ever more unhinged laws that directly or indirectly choke and suppress civil society. Not necessarily addressing a direct threat of terrorism, such legislation typically addresses the need to protect national security, including through the use of emergency powers. 46. Many States have adopted laws that that loosely invoke national security, national interest or public order as all-encompassing categories that often include any act criminalized solely through the subjective lens of the impact that it may have, including those “affecting national security, political and social stability” and “dangerous to the political, economic or social system”. Many activities of civil society organizations, human rights defenders, journalists, bloggers and political opponents will fall under such laws, whose main objective is to criminalize legitimate expressions of opinion and thought. 47. In some States, the use of emergency powers has been accompanied by a severe crackdown on civil society. In Turkey, following the declaration of a state of emergency, it was reported that, in 2017 alone, 300 journalists had been arrested and detained on alleged grounds that their publications had contained apologist sentiments about terrorism and other 79 A/HRC/38/34, paras. 28–29. See also Ben Hayes, Counter-Terrorism, ‘Policy Laundering’ and 80 the FATF: Legalising Surveillance, Regulating Civil Society (Transnational Institute/Statewatch, 2012). A/HRC/23/39, paras. 8–18. See also the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 13. 81 82 83 84 A/HRC/23/39, para. 20. See also RUS 2-2018 and RUS 15-2018. A/70/371, paras. 31–44. Debarre, “Safeguarding medical care”. S/2009/277, para. 45. 13