A/HRC/4/25 page 17 C. Impact of states of emergency and other exceptional measures 51. While the precedents established by the treaty and non-treaty bodies have enabled progress to be made in the legal regulation of states of emergency, nowadays there are still many cases in which improper conduct by State institutions has an adverse effect on the exercise of human rights, in particular as far as the right to a fair trial and the independence of the judiciary are concerned. With regard to the former, the most blatant violations are of the right of habeas corpus, the right to legal assistance of one’s own choosing, the right to appeal before an independent court, the right to a public judgement, the right to present one’s own witnesses and the right to a public trial. Other frequent violations are indefinite detention, without charges or a trial, protracted incommunicado detention, obtaining confessions using torture, convictions based on such confessions, the violation of the principle of non bis in idem and the indiscriminate use of preventive detention. Measures are also adopted to prevent the judiciary from acting as a counterweight to the executive. Such measures include, for example, replacing ordinary courts by military courts or commissions, harassing judges, prosecutors and lawyers, removing judges or transferring them to places where they are unable to interfere with the executive, subordinating the judiciary to the executive and discrediting or disregarding judicial decisions. 52. New threats have justified new ways of suspending human rights, in breach of the obligations undertaken by States. Use is made of exceptional measures under ordinary circumstances, in disregard of some of the aforementioned principles, namely those of proclamation, notification, exceptional threat, proportionality and non-discrimination. Together with the persistence of unlawfully extended states of emergency and the consequent human rights violations, nowadays restrictions are frequently imposed that go far beyond the limitations and derogations allowed under ordinary circumstances, generally by means of laws on national security, anti-terrorist and immigration.19 53. The fight against terrorism poses new challenges. Terrorism is increasingly presented as the justification for declaring a state of emergency, when in fact it may not be, and very often is not. Apart from undermining the guarantees of due process, the fight against terrorism is used as a pretext for restricting or denying other rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, the free movement of persons, etc. In this connection, some States have even gone as far as to create parallel systems for the administration of justice which completely ignore universally applicable standards and avoid the application of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by describing the accused as “terrorists”, “subversives” or “enemy combatants”. 19 In this respect it should be emphasized that a measure is exceptional above and beyond the declaration of a state of emergency if it exceeds the limitations allowed under ordinary circumstances.