A/HRC/4/25 page 14 there is an increasing trend for the judiciary to take steps to end the state of emergency once the conditions that prompted it no longer exist. In this connection, and confronted with numerous cases of the unnecessary continuation of a state of emergency, the Colombian Constitutional Court stated that the restriction of fundamental rights “must have as its basic purpose the preservation of those rights, which may under no circumstances be destroyed but only temporarily restricted with a view to restoring the rule of law and the full enjoyment of rights and freedoms”.6 44. The principle of exceptional threat refers to the nature of the danger or alleged event that enables the state of emergency to be declared. It must be an exceptional danger, current or imminent, real and specific, which affects the entire nation to the extent that the measures for restricting or limiting rights allowed under normal circumstances are clearly inadequate. The existence of such a threat is closely related to judicial oversight of the proclamation of the state of emergency, specifically the substantive oversight of the “exceptional threat”. While the proclamation is the prima facie responsibility of the political authorities, which are best placed to assess the scale of the emergency, the repeated resort to unjustified emergency measures has prompted various high-level courts to question en passant the grounds for declaring states of emergency. As far as terrorism is concerned, not every act of terrorism justifies the declaration of a state of emergency, since it must pose a real and specific threat to the organized life of the nation. For example, in its ruling resulting in the repeal of part of the Anti-terrorism Act, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom questioned whether terrorism was an exceptional danger threatening the life of the nation.7 45. The aim of the principle of proportionality is to strike an appropriate balance between the measures applied and the gravity of the situation. This means that any restrictions or suspensions should fall strictly within the limits imposed by the exigencies of the situation. This principle foreshadows and shapes the exercise of emergency powers, and is based on the essential link with the events which prompt the state of emergency and the appropriateness, necessity and strict proportionality of the measures applied.8 Judicial bodies must have the authority to suspend emergency measures which are unnecessary or go beyond what is allowed under domestic law and international treaties. Like self-defence, which is one of its foundations, this principle implies the existence of an imminent threat and calls for an appropriate balance between the threat and the methods used to avert it; the latter, in order to be legitimate, must be proportionate to the gravity of the threat. For this reason, if the grounds for the state of emergency are to be considered a legal concept under international law, they must be evaluated by an impartial authority. The judiciary therefore has a position of special responsibility in assessing the proportionality of the measures applied during states of emergency.9 6 Judgement C-939/02 of 31 October 2002, op. cit., considerations and grounds, para. 7. 7 A. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2005, 2 A.C. 68 (H.L.), 130. 8 Loc. cit. (note 6), para. 5. 9 L. Despouy, op. cit. (note 4 above), pp. 38 and 39.