A/HRC/40/52 similar “verbal act offences”, or for “membership” of armed organizations and “assisting a terrorist group”.85 F. Increased use of administrative measures 48. Administrative measures are increasingly used by States to address various terrorism and security threats. The many laws adopted after the adoption of Security Council resolution 2178 (2014) to curb the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters include executive travel bans and revocation of citizenship. Given the lack of a definition of terrorism, States have reportedly been able to ban from travel humanitarian workers, medical staff, peaceful activists, human rights defenders, members of political parties, youth activists, people associated with NGOs, and academics, often without providing reasons and with no judicial recourse.86 G. Devolution of regulation to private actors 49. One significant concern is the increased use of measures that subcontract regulation and implementation to private actors that, until recently, have had little to do with countering terrorism or violent extremism. Such actors find themselves obliged to play a front-line role in the implementation of often vague and ambiguous counter-terrorism and other security legislation or regulation, under the threat of disproportionate sanctions and very short time frames. These delegation processes can have a serious impact on fundamental rights and freedoms necessary for the existence of civil society. First, because the complex processes involved lack in judicial oversight and transparency, and remedies, where they exist, are difficult to access and onerous. Second, because such devolved powers, resulting from overly broad, vague or ambiguous legislation and the threat of judicial action, will almost inevitably lead the subcontracted companies to over-regulate. 50. Information and communications technology companies hosting third-party content, which have been facing mounting pressure from Governments to proactively monitor and police content generated or disseminated by users in the field of terrorism, have been particularly affected by legislation that imposes obligations to take down “terrorismrelated” content and is used as a basis for threats of criminal litigation or civil liability. The threats involved and the lack of guidance given to companies often lead to overregulation, as shown by the overly broad and imprecise definition of terrorism applied by Facebook, which equates all non-State groups that use violence in pursuit of any goals or ends to terrorist entities, 87 a matter that the mandate holder has addressed bilaterally with Facebook. 51. Financial institutions have been similarly burdened by measures that address access to banking services for the purpose of countering the financing of terrorism. 88 In many countries, Governments have turned to financial institutions for the implementation of new standards, drastically increasing the levels of regulatory compliance for financial institutions. Typically, these processes involve an administrative decision against a financial institution,89 while the implementing decision that affects the right of civil society to access resources results from the operation of a private contract between the financial institution and its customer. As failure to comply can be very costly for financial institutions, leading to punitive action, many risk-averse banks have implemented protocols 85 TUR 14-2018. 86 Human Rights Watch, “Foreign terrorist fighter laws: human rights rollbacks under UN Security Council resolution 2178” (2016). See also www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/01/egypt-scores-barredtraveling# and www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/10/tunisia-arbitrary-travel-restrictions#. 87 OHCHR, “UN human rights expert says Facebook’s ‘terrorism’ definition is too broad”, (3 September 2018). A/70/371, paras. 42–44. See, for example, Collectif de développement et secours Syrien, “Defense d’aider? Comment les institutions financieres francaises entravent l’action humanitaire en Syrie”, (2018). 88 89 14