COMBATING TERRORISM WITHOUT VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS : SOME OPTIONS REVISITED

This article reviews counter-terrorism strategies that protect public safety while upholding human rights. It surveys legal frameworks for arrest, surveillance and detention; evaluates judicial oversight and parliamentary scrutiny; and highlights how evidence-led policing and community partnerships outperform indiscriminate coercion. The paper also discusses the ethics and operational risk of emergency powers, proscription lists and preventive detention, arguing that abuse erodes intelligence flows and legitimacy. Drawing on comparative practice, it outlines options that align with due process: targeted investigations, calibrated use-of-force protocols, custodial safeguards, and rehabilitation pathways for disengagement. The core claim is that rights-compatible counter-terrorism is not a constraint but a capability, because trust and accountability improve information quality and reduce recruitment by extremist networks.

The body is structured as a policy manual. Part one details the legal architecture: clear offence definitions, proportionate sentencing and independent authorization for intrusive measures, with audit trails to ensure accountability. Part two covers policing: intelligence fusion centers, confidential informant handling, digital forensics and chain-of-custody standards that withstand judicial scrutiny. Part three addresses prevention: community liaison, grievance redress and online counter-narratives that steer at-risk individuals away from violence. Part four sets out detention safeguards—access to counsel, medical checks, recording of interrogations—and explains why these protect both suspects and investigators. Part five explores rehabilitation and reintegration, including vocational training and case management. The conclusion provides a checklist for decision makers to stress-test operations against legality, necessity and proportionality while measuring outcomes beyond arrest numbers.