A/HRC/16/51 privatization of counter-terrorist functions, such as security measures at checkpoints, should be avoided, such privatization, where it occurs, should include the same level of accountability as for conduct by State agents.21 16. The Special Rapporteur therefore formulates the template provision below concerning the consistency of State and private counter-terrorist conduct with human rights law: Practice 2. Model provision on consistency of counter-terrorism practices with human rights and refugee law, and humanitarian law In the application and exercise of all functions under the law relating to terrorism, it is unlawful for any person to act in any way that is incompatible with the purposes and provisions of international human rights and refugee law that are binding upon the State. In this regard: 1. The exercise of functions and powers shall be based on clear provisions of law that exhaustively enumerate the powers in question. 2. The exercise of such functions and powers may never violate peremptory or non-derogable norms of international law, nor impair the essence of any human right. 3. Where the exercise of functions and powers involves a restriction upon a human right that is capable of limitation, any such restriction should be to the least intrusive means possible and shall: (a) Be necessary in a democratic society to pursue a defined legitimate aim, as permitted by international law; and (b) Be proportionate to the benefit obtained in achieving the legitimate aim in question. 4. If the State is involved, as a party, in an ongoing armed conflict, the above provisions shall apply also to securing compliance with principles and provisions of international humanitarian law, without prejudice to the obligation to comply with international human rights and refugee law. C. Normal operation and regular review of counter-terrorism law and practice 17. To the greatest extent possible, counter-terrorism law and practice must be consistent with the principle of normalcy. Counter-terrorism measures should, to the broadest possible extent, be entrusted to civilian authorities whose functions relate to combating crime and whose performance of counter-terrorism functions is pursuant to ordinary powers.22 This also applies to the prosecution and trial of terrorist offences, which 21 22 - generally applicable provisions to this effect: Canada, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 1; Finland, Constitution, sect. 22; Monaco, Constitution du 17 décembre 1962, arts. 17-32; Switzerland, Constitution fédérale, arts. 7-36 and 41; questionnaire responses submitted by Australia, Belgium, Cuba, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, the Syrian Arab Republic and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,. See also E/CN.4/2006/98, para. 70, and A/HRC/4/26/Add.3, paras. 10 and 65. A/HRC/6/17/Add.4, paras. 38 and 59. See also the Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers, signed 9 November 2010. Questionnaire responses submitted by Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational State 9