A/HRC/4/25 page 12 material requirements for introducing a state of emergency. This article has been the subject of extensive comments by the Human Rights Committee, particularly in its general comment No. 29 on article 4 (Derogations during a state of emergency).2 The delay in the entry into force of the Covenant meant that the Commission on Human Rights also became involved in the clarification and protection of human rights, including during states of emergency. The Subcommission and the Commission established a special procedure under the successive mandates of two Special Rapporteurs: Nicole Questiaux3 and Leandro Despouy. The mandate of the latter consisted of drawing up an annual list of States that had proclaimed a state of emergency and a final report presented to the Commission on Human Rights in 1997.4 This report contains guidelines for use by States in drafting legislation and explains the legal principles governing the declaration and implementation of states of emergency. B. Principles governing states of emergency: relationship with the administration of justice 39. From the standpoint of international law, a state of emergency, its declaration and its application are governed by eight basic principles that are widely applied in the administration of justice. 40. The principle of legality relates to the need to have in place and to observe clear and precise provisions relating to the state of emergency. It also calls for monitoring mechanisms, including the judiciary, to ensure that the state of emergency is in keeping with the law. Observance of the principle of legality during a state of emergency therefore consists of observance of the provisions relating to the declaration and application of the state of emergency, and of rules and regulations to ensure oversight of the executive by the judiciary. Although in purely formal terms the principle of legality is met by invoking a reason provided for by law, the absence of legal definitions for many types of offences, especially those involving terrorism, gives rise to serious problems. In this connection many States have incorporated definitions that are clearly contrary to the principle of legality in their legislation. International human rights law stipulates the need for a clear and precise definition of offences and appropriate penalties, which are applicable only after their codification. Given the diverging views on the concept of terrorism, it is essential that the courts should be fully independent and competent to monitor anti-terrorist legislation and its implementation. A particularly telling example is a recent judgement by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. It found that although the declaration of a state of emergency in February 2006 following a coup attempt was constitutional, in various 2 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 40 [A/56/40 (vol. 1)], annex V. 3 4 See E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/15. See the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and states of emergency to the forty-ninth session of the Commission (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/19 and Add.1); see also L. Despouy, Los derechos humanos y los estados de excepción, Universidad Autónoma de México, 1999.