A/HRC/33/28 Development6 and, in that context, highlighted the need to develop a peaceful society based on good governance. C. Defining violent extremism 41. There was general agreement that preventing and countering violent extremism were pressing needs. One State stressed that victims of violent extremism deserved justice and that the perpetrators of violent acts had to be held accountable. Some States and civil society organizations expressed concern, however, that the absence of a definition of “violent extremism” could lead to human rights violations and were of the view that reaching agreement on a definition should be the first step. Legislation and policies to prevent and counter violent extremism had already been used to quell political opposition in several regions. Overly broad or vague definitions of what constituted “extremism” or “violent extremism” could provide Governments with a tool of suppression, especially visà-vis those who disagreed with State policies or wished to challenge them. The lack of a definition could permit counter-terrorism programming to unduly expand and encroach on civil liberties. There was a need at least for greater delineation between terrorism and violent extremism. 42. States used the term “violent extremism” differently during the discussion, which illustrates the definitional problem. Several delegates used the term interchangeably with terrorism, whereas some characterized it as a root cause of terrorism and others believed that violent extremism could lead to terrorism but only in certain circumstances. Among those States that equated violent extremism with terrorism, one characterized violent extremism in terms of Security Council resolution 2178 (2014). Through that lens, measures to prevent and counter violent extremism were equivalent to those needed to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism outlined in pillar I of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. 43. States pointed out that the issue of the definition had been raised in a report by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.7 In an effort to help resolve the tension, some States shared information on the definitions of violent extremism that they used. For example, one State said that it understood violent extremism to be the beliefs and actions of people who support violence to achieve political goals, which sometimes, but not always, included acts of terrorism. D. Role of human rights in preventing and countering violent extremism 44. Most States emphasized the role of human rights and democracy in preventing and countering violent extremism. Some called upon States to adhere to their obligations under international law. Upholding human rights and preventing and countering violent extremism were mutually reinforcing. One could not be pursued successfully at the expense of the other. The risk of violent extremism was higher in environments where human rights were violated, governance was poor and economic opportunities were lacking. Measures aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism had to be prescribed by law and be proportional and necessary for achieving a legitimate aim. In that regard, the United 6 7 10 General Assembly resolution 70/1. A/HRC/31/65.