Anti-terrorism legislation

Last updated

Anti-terrorism legislation are laws with the purpose of fighting terrorism. They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings or assassinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under alleged grounds of necessity.

Contents

Because of this suspension of regular procedure, such legislation is sometimes criticized as a form of lois scélérates which may unjustly repress all kinds of popular protests. Critics often allege that anti-terrorism legislation endangers democracy by creating a state of exception that allows authoritarian style of government.

Terrorism has been on the international agenda since 1934, when the League of Nations, predecessor of the United Nations, began the elaboration of a convention for the prevention and punishment of terrorism. [1] Although the convention was eventually adopted in 1937, it never came into force.

Today, there are 15 counter-terrorism international conventions in force. They were developed under the auspices of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Moreover, on 8 September 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted a "Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy". [2]

Conventions open to all states

A 16th international convention, a proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, is currently under negotiations.

Security Council Resolutions

Regional conventions

Europe

Commonwealth of Independent States

The Americas

Africa

Asia

  • SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism (Kathmandu, November 1987)
  • Additional Protocol to the convention, Islamabad, January 2004 [As of 30 August 2005 not yet in force].
  • The ASEAN Convention On Counter Terrorism, Cebu, Philippines, 13 January 2007 [In force from 27 May 2011, on 22 January 2013 all ASEAN members signed the ACCT]

South Korea

  • Act on prohibition against the financing of terrorism (February 29, 2008)

→(rev)Act on prohibition against the financing of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (March 29, 2016)

  • Act on anti-terrorism for the protection of citizens and public security [6] (March 3, 2016)

League of Arab States

Organization of the Islamic Conference

Anti-terrorist legislation in the European Union

European Union

Belgium

France

France has passed a variety of anti-terrorist laws, the first of which being the 19th-century lois scélérates restricting freedom of expression. Today, magistrates in the Justice Ministry anti-terrorism unit have authority to detain people suspected of "conspiracy in relation to terrorism" while evidence is gathered against them. [7]

Ireland

Italy

Italy passed various anti-terrorist laws during the "Years of Lead" (anni di piombo) in the 1970s.

The Reale Act was adopted on 22 May 1975. It allowed the police to carry out searches and arrest persons without being mandated by an investigative judge. Interrogation could take place without the presence of a lawyer. Critics underlined that this contradicted article 3 of the Constitution on equality before the law. [9]

Preventive detention was fixed before 1970 to two years, for a possible sentence going between 20 years to perpetuity, while it was limited to one year for charges of crimes leading to a sentence of less than 20 years. It passed to four years after 1970. A decree-law of 11 April 1974 authorized a four-year detention until the first judgment, six years until the appeal, and eight years until the definitive judgment. In case of indictment for "acts of terrorism," the preventive detention was extended to twelve years. [9]

The Cossiga decree-law was passed on 15 December 1979. It prolonged the length of preventive detention relative to terrorism suspicions and allowed wiretaps. Critics have pointed out that this violated articles 15 and 27 of the Constitution. [9] The Cossiga decree-law also created the status of pentito (officially "collaborators of justice"): those accused of terrorism crimes and who accepted of confessing them and of informing the authorities about their accomplices could be liberated.

Law n°191 of May 21, 1978, called "Moro law", and law n°15 of February 6, 1980, were ratifications by the assembly of decrees of emergency enacted by the executive power, respectively on March 28, 1978, and on December 15, 1979. [10]

United Kingdom

UK anti-terrorism legislation is subject to regular review by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

Anti-terrorism legislation in common law countries (other than the UK)

Australia

The Civil Rights Network opposes such legislation. Elizabeth Evatt, a federal judge, has criticized John Howard's 2005 anti-terrorism bill, particularly provisions relating to control orders and preventive detention, saying that "These laws are striking at the most fundamental freedoms in our democracy in a most draconian way." [12]

Bangladesh

Canada

India

New Zealand

Pakistan

"creation of internal disturbances in violation of law or intended to violate law, commencement or continuation of illegal strikes, go-slows, lock-outs, vehicle snatching/lifting, damage to or destruction of State or private property, random firing to create panic, charging bhatha

[protection money/extortion], acts of criminal trespass, distributing, publishing or pasting of a handbill or making graffiti

or wall-chalking intended to create unrest or fear or create a threat to the security of law and order..." [17]

Russia

In 2017 Ukraine opened a case against Russia for involvement and financing of military-occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and part of Donbas. [20]

South Africa

United States

Federal

Ohio

Anti-terrorism legislation in civil law countries (outside the European Union)

China

China passed Anti-terrorism Law on December 27, 2015. [24]

The Anti-terrorism Law has 10 chapters and 97 articles, taking effect on January 1, 2016. Before the promulgation of Anti-terrorism Law, though anti-terrorism laws can be found in the Criminal Law or some other emergency action regulations, there was not a systematic legal structure or source for anti-terrorism actions.

The most controversial provisions of the Anti-terrorism Law are the numerous new restrictions on the operation of internet and technology based companies, among which Article 21 says that an internet operator or provider is obligated to verify the identity of each user and shall refuse to provide services to a user who refuses such verification or fails to provide a clear identity. Any company who fails to meet such obligation may face fines, orders of rectification and its management and executives may face fines and even detentions from 5 to 15 days. In addition, Article 18 says any telecommunication operator or internet provider shall provide technology access and source code or other de-encryption support and assistance for the purposes of preventing and investigating terrorism by Public Safety Department or National Security Department.

Chile

Human Rights Watch has criticized the Chilean government for inappropriately using anti-terrorist legislation against Mapuche groups involved in land conflicts. While the legislation in question was originally enacted by the Pinochet dictatorship, the democratic governments that have followed have actually increased its severity.[ citation needed ] Human Rights Watch has expressed special concern that the current version of the law lists arson as a "terrorist" offence. This has allowed the application of the law against Mapuche vandals. While recognizing that crimes have certainly been committed, the international organization believes that they are not comparable to terrorist acts. [25] In 2018, Amnesty International urged Chile to stop utilizing the Anti-Terrorism Law  [ es ] to prosecute Mapuche dissidents affirmed all people's right to a fair trial. [26]

El Salvador

El Salvador, presided by Antonio Saca of the right-wing ARENA party, had adopted in September 2006 an anti-terrorist law. All major parties, including the FMLN, have criticized the law, claiming it could be used against social movements [27]

The government first attempted to use the law against illegal street vendors who violently resisted removal by the police. These charges did not result in convictions.

In July 2007, the Salvadoran government charged fourteen people with acts of terrorism for their participation and/or association with a demonstration against privatization of the nation's water system. Charges were dismissed against one of those arrested. The remainder, known as the Suchitito 13, were released, but continued to face charges under the Special Law Against Terrorist Acts. [28] [29] The charges were reduced to "disorderly conduct" in early February 2008 and then completely dropped later in the month.

Israel

Many years Israel has relied on mandatory regulations as a legal basis for fighting terrorism and for convicting terrorists both in civilian and military courts. In 2016, after a long and thorough work by the Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked, the Knesset passed a comprehensive law against terrorism, forbidding any kind of terrorism and support of terrorism, and setting severe punishments for terrorists. The law also regulates legal efforts against terrorism. [30]

Peru

Peru adopted anti-terrorist laws in 1992, under Alberto Fujimori's presidency. The laws were criticized by Amnesty International, who declared in its 2002 report that "Detainees falsely charged with 'terrorism-related' offences in previous years remained held. 'Anti-terrorism' legislation which had resulted in unfair trials since its introduction in 1992 remained in force. Members of the security forces accused of human rights violations continued to have their cases transferred to military courts." [31] Lori Berenson, a US citizen serving a 20-year prison term in Peru, has been condemned in virtue of these laws, on charges of collaboration with the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement.

Philippines

The Human Security Act of 2007, signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and effective since July 2007, officially aimed at tackling militants in the southern Philippines, including the Abu Sayyaf group, which has links to al-Qaeda and has been blamed for bombings and kidnappings in the region. [32]

Under the law, three days of warrantless detention are authorized, [32] although arresting officers are obliged to immediately inform a judge about the arrest. [32] Furthermore, detained terrorists are entitled to see a lawyer, a priest, a doctor, or family members. [32] The law allows eavesdropping on suspects [33] as well as access to bank accounts for authorities. [32] Convictions could result in 40-year prison sentences, but compensations are provided for in case of miscarriage of justice. [32] [33] Terrorism was defined by Section 3 as "sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand", [33] a formulation criticized by Wilson Fortaleza, national president and third nominee of the labor party-list group Sanlakas, who claimed the law could be used to crush political dissent. [33]

Indonesia

Following the October 2002 Bali bombings, Indonesia adopted Government Regulation in Lieu of Law 1/2002. Under the Indonesian legal system, a Government Regulation in Lieu of Law has the same power as a parliament-enacted legislation, except that it can only be issued under emergency circumstances and is subject to review by the next parliamentary session. Nevertheless, Indonesian Parliament enacted this emergency regulation into Law 15/2003. As since, Indonesia has an anti-terror legislation with strong political support. The Anti-Terror Law cultivates many criticism, however. The Law contained provisions which can circumvent normal criminal proceeding such as quick and long detention. One of the main contentious provision of the Law is that it allows Intelligence Information to be used as a preliminary evidence that can be used for apprehending a suspect. The role of Intelligence Information as evidence has been a subject of hot debate in Indonesia. [34]

Turkey

Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law (Law 3713; April 1991), slightly amended in 1995 and later repealed, [35] imposed three-year prison sentences for "separatist propaganda." Despite its name, the Anti-Terror Law punished many non-violent offences. [36] Pacifists have been imprisoned under Article 8. For example, publisher Fatih Tas was prosecuted in 2002 under Article 8 at Istanbul State Security Court for translating and publishing writings by Noam Chomsky, summarizing the history of the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey; he was acquitted, however, in February 2002. [36]

State Security Courts were transformed into Heavy Penal Courts following June 2004 reforms to the 1982 Constitution, enacted following the 1980 military coup.

As of 2008, detainees arrested under the Anti-Terror Law have access to lawyers at the very beginning of their detention. [37]

Ukraine

In 2017 Ukraine opened a case against Russia for involvement and financing of military occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and part of Donbas. [20]

Anti Terrorist Act, 2009 passed in Bangladesh

This act is effective from 11 June 2008. Under section 28 of this Act, anti terrorist special Tribunal is trying the crimes.[ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Counterterrorism</span> Activity to defend against or prevent terrorist actions

Counterterrorism, also known as anti-terrorism, relates to the practices, military tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, law enforcement, businesses, and intelligence agencies use to combat or eliminate terrorism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Act 2000</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Terrorism Act 2000 is the first of a number of general Terrorism Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It superseded and repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland Act 1996. It also replaced parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1998. The powers it provides the police have been controversial, leading to noted cases of alleged abuse, and to legal challenges in British and European courts. The stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Act have been ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

There is no universal agreement on the legal definition of terrorism, although there exists a consensus academic definition created by scholars.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, formally introduced into Parliament on 19 November 2001, two months after the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September. It received royal assent and came into force on 14 December 2001. Many of its measures are not specifically related to terrorism, and a Parliamentary committee was critical of the swift timetable for such a long bill including non-emergency measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, intended to deal with the Law Lords' ruling of 16 December 2004 that the detention without trial of eight foreigners at HM Prison Belmarsh under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was unlawful, being incompatible with European human rights laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-Terrorism Act 2005</span> Counter-terrorism Act of the Parliament of Australia in 2005

The Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 (Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia, which is intended to hamper the activities of any potential terrorists in the country. The counter-terrorism law was passed on 6 December 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Act 2006</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Terrorism Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received royal assent on 30 March 2006, after being introduced on 12 October 2005. The Act creates new offences related to terrorism, and amends existing ones. The Act was drafted in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, and some of its terms have proven to be highly controversial. The government considered the act a necessary response to an unparalleled terrorist threat; it has encountered opposition from those who feel that it is an undue imposition on civil liberties, and could increase the terrorism risk.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act</span> Repealed Indian legislation (1985–1995)

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, commonly known as TADA, was an Indian anti-terrorism law which was in force between 1985 and 1995 under the background of the Punjab insurgency and was applied to whole of India. It was originally assented to by the President on 23 May 1985 and came into effect on 24 May 1985. This act was intended to halt the Khalistani Movement, an armed Sikh separatist movement present in Punjab. It later expanded to encompass other states as well. The Act had a sunset provision for lapsing after two years post-commencement, which it did on 24 May 1987. The Parliament not being in session, the life of the Act could not be extended. But the provisions were kept alive by an ordinance effective from the expiry date of the Act. This ordinance was later replaced with the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. It was assented to on 3 September 1987, and made effective in two parts from 24 May 1987 and 3 September 1987. This also had a sunset provision of two years from 24 May 1987. It was renewed in 1989, 1991 and 1993 before being allowed to lapse in 1995 due to increasing unpopularity after widespread allegations of abuse. It was the first anti-terrorism law legislated by the government to define and counter terrorist activities.

From 2000 to 2015, the British Parliament passed a series of Terrorism Acts that were aimed at terrorism in general, rather than specifically focused on terrorism related to Northern Ireland. The timings were influenced by the September 11, 2001 attacks and 7 July London bombings, as well as the politics of the global War on Terrorism, according to the politicians who announce them as their response to a terrorism act.

Administrative detention is arrest and detention of individuals by the state without trial. A number of jurisdictions claim that it is done for security reasons. Many countries claim to use administrative detention as a means to combat terrorism or rebellion, to control illegal immigration, or to otherwise protect the ruling regime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Security Act</span> Philippine law

The Human Security Act of 2007, officially designated as Republic Act No. 9372, was a Philippine law that took effect on July 20, 2007. The law, which was watered-down after opposition from some politicians and rights groups feared the legislation would endanger human rights, was aimed at tackling militants, particularly the Abu Sayyaf, in the southern Philippines.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act</span> Indian law to prevent unlawful activities

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is an Indian law aimed at prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. Its main objective was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. The most recent amendment of the law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 has made it possible for the Union Government to designate individuals as terrorists without following any formal judicial process. UAPA is also known as the "Anti-terror law".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Suppression Act 2002</span> Act of the Parliament of New Zealand

The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 is New Zealand counter-terrorism legislation passed under the Clark-led Labour government. Enacted following the September 11 attacks in the United States, the Act was designed to better address contemporary terrorism issues, both domestically and abroad. Until May 2019, the Act had not been formally used in a prosecution; however there were several failed attempts by the Crown to do so. Many individuals and organisations have however been designated as "Terrorist entities" under the Act's provisions, in line with UN Security Council designations. The Act was amended in 2007. In May 2019, a charge of engaging in a terrorist act was laid against Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque attacks, under section 6A of the Act.

Civil liberties in the United Kingdom are part of UK constitutional law and have a long and formative history. This is usually considered to have begun with Magna Carta of 1215, a landmark document in British constitutional history. Development of civil liberties advanced in common law and statute law in the 17th and 18th centuries, notably with the Bill of Rights 1689. During the 19th century, working-class people struggled to win the right to vote and join trade unions. Parliament responded with new legislation beginning with the Reform Act 1832. Attitudes towards suffrage and liberties progressed further in the aftermath of the first and second world wars. Since then, the United Kingdom's relationship to civil liberties has been mediated through its membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom, through Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, led the drafting of the Convention, which expresses a traditional civil libertarian theory. It became directly applicable in UK law with the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Indefinite detention is the incarceration of an arrested person by a national government or law enforcement agency for an indefinite amount of time without a trial. The Human Rights Watch considers this practice as violating national and international laws, particularly human rights laws, although it remains in legislation in various liberal democracies.

The Terrorist Financing Convention is a 1999 United Nations treaty designed to criminalize acts of financing acts of terrorism. The convention also seeks to promote police and judicial co-operation to prevent, investigate and punish the financing of such acts. As of October 2018, the treaty has been ratified by 188 states; in terms of universality, it is therefore one of the most successful anti-terrorism treaties in history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624</span> United Nations resolution adopted in 2005

United Nations Security Council resolution 1624, adopted unanimously at the 2005 World Summit on 14 September 2005, after reaffirming previous resolutions on terrorism, including resolutions 1267 (1999), 1373 (2001), 1535 (2004), 1540 (2004), 1566 (2004) and 1617 (2005), the Council called on all states to co-operate in order to strengthen the security of their international borders by enhancing terrorist screening and passenger security procedures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Counter Terrorism Agency</span> Indonesian Government Department

The National Counter Terrorism Agency is an Indonesian non-ministerial government department that works to prevent terrorism. BNPT is headed by a chief, who is responsible to the President. When it was first launched, the leader of BNPT held the ranking of a civil servant but the Presidential Regulation in 2012 elevated the post of BNPT Chief to the ministerial level.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incitement to terrorism</span> Category in some national legal systems

Incitement to terrorism is a category in some national legal systems which may criminalize direct encouragement of acts of violence or praise for proscribed terrorist organizations. It was also prohibited by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624 in 2005.

The law of extradition in the Republic of Ireland includes legislation and case law, and gives effect to treaties.

References

  1. ↑ See Lyal S. Sunga, The Emerging System of International Criminal Law: Developments in Codification and Implementation (Brill Publishers, 1997) pp. 191-203.
  2. ↑ International instruments to counter terrorism, United Nations
  3. ↑ "ETS no. 090 - European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism". Council of Europe. 27 January 1977. Retrieved 29 August 2008.
  4. ↑ "ETS No. 190 - Protocol amending the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism". Council of Europe. 27 January 1977. Retrieved 29 August 2008.
  5. ↑ "Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (CETS No. 196)". Council of Europe. 16 May 2005. Archived from the original on 7 August 2008. Retrieved 29 August 2008.
  6. ↑ "국민보호와 공공안전을 위한 테러방지법" . Retrieved 25 November 2019.
  7. ↑ "Help From France Key In Covert Operations". The Washington Post . ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 19 January 2022.
  8. 1 2 "Safety & Security: Terrorism". The Department of Justice and Equality, Republic of Ireland. Retrieved 3 June 2014.
  9. 1 2 3 Schimel, Anne (1 April 1998). "Justice « de plomb » en Italie". Le Monde diplomatique (in French). Retrieved 19 January 2022.
  10. ↑ "Paroledonnee". 12 April 2021. Archived from the original on 8 October 2002. Retrieved 19 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  11. ↑ Dominic Casciani (24 January 2008). "Terror bill: Key elements". BBC News. Retrieved 29 August 2008.
  12. ↑ Michael Pelly, Tony Stephens and Marian Wilkinson (25 October 2005). "Former leaders call for debate". Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 11 September 2006. Retrieved 11 August 2006.
  13. ↑ "Bangladesh Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009".
  14. ↑ Radia, Andy (19 April 2013). "Harper government to fast track anti-terrorism bill". Canada Politics. Yahoo! Canada . Retrieved 22 April 2013.
  15. ↑ Branch, Legislative Services (15 November 2019). "Consolidated federal laws of canada, Anti-terrorism Act, 2015". laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
  16. ↑ Kalhan, Anil; et al. (2006). Colonial Continuities: Human Rights, Antiterrorism, and Security Laws in India. 20 Colum. J. Asian L. 93. SSRN   970503.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Kennedy, Charles H. (2004). "The Creation and Development of Pakistan's Anti-terrorism Regime, 1997–2002" (PDF). In Limaye, Satu P.; Wirsing, Robert G.; Malik, Mohan (eds.). Religious Radicalism and Security in South Asia (PDF). Honolulu, Hawaï, Spring: Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies. pp. 387–413.
  18. ↑ "The Anti Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997". Pakistan's Federal Investigative Agency's website. Archived from the original on 14 February 2012. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
  19. ↑ Ortega, Kellie (2002). "Anti-terrorist laws in Pakistan". Seminar Magazine. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
  20. 1 2 Oliphant, Roland (6 March 2017). "Ukraine sues Russia in International Court of Justice for 'financing terrorism' and discrimination". Telegraph . Telegraph Media Group Limited . Retrieved 13 August 2019.
  21. ↑ "Part 4". static.pmg.org.za. Retrieved 18 January 2022.
  22. ↑ Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. "Anti-Terrorism Bill" (PDF). Retrieved 18 January 2022.
  23. ↑ South African Police Service. "PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY AGAINST TERRORIST AND RELATED ACTIVITIES ACT 33 OF 2004" (PDF).
  24. ↑ Shaohui, Tian, ed. (27 December 2015). "Commentary: China's anti-terrorism legislation no excuse for U.S. agitation". Xinhuanet . Archived from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
  25. ↑ "Undue Process: Terrorism Trials, Military Courts and the Mapuche in Southern Chile" (PDF). Human Rights Watch . 16 (5): 63. October 2004. Retrieved 28 August 2008.
  26. ↑ "Chile: Authorities must stop criminalizing Indigenous Mapuche people under the Anti-Terrorism Law". Amnesty International. 28 May 2018.
  27. ↑ "Fighting Terrorism". Latin America Monitor. Business Monitor International Ltd. October 2006. Archived from the original on 22 February 2007. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
  28. ↑ "El Salvador: Amnesty International Criticizes El Salvador for Using Anti-Terrorism Laws to Punish Social Protesters". Amnesty International USA . 18 July 2007. Archived from the original on 10 November 2008. Retrieved 29 August 2008.
  29. ↑ "Democracia Azul: Access to Water as a Human Right in El Salvador". Center for International Policy . 18 January 2008. Retrieved 29 August 2008.
  30. ↑ "Terror bill passes into law". The Jerusalem Post . The Jerusalem Post. 16 June 2016. Retrieved 16 June 2016.
  31. ↑ Toledo, Alejandro (December 2002). "2002 Report on Peru". Amnesty International . Archived from the original on 17 March 2007. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
  32. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Philippines approves terror bill". 20 February 2007. Retrieved 19 January 2022.
  33. 1 2 3 4 Romero, Paolo. 'No haven for terror in RP', ABS News , March 7, 2007
  34. ↑ Movanet. "Rewriting the antiterror law" . Retrieved 19 January 2022.
  35. ↑ Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (22 June 2004). "Implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights by Turkey". Council of Europe . No. Resolution No 1381. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
  36. 1 2 "Questions and Answers: Freedom of Expression and Language Rights in Turkey". Human Rights Watch . April 2002. Retrieved 13 August 2019.
  37. ↑ "Retrograde Human Rights Trends and Stagnation of the Human Rights Reform Process" . Retrieved 13 August 2019. 4th part of the Human Rights Watch July 2007 report titled "Turkey: Human Rights Concerns in the Lead up to July Parliamentary Elections.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.