The home secretary's use of control orders may be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Law Society told a panel of eminent international jurists hearing evidence last week on the impact of measures taken in the UK to combat terrorism.

The Society said it was concerned that the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 enabled the home secretary to impose wide-ranging and seemingly open-ended obligations, on the suspicion that a person was involved in terrorism-related activity. In addition, the Act sought to limit the High Court's power to intervene.


Concerns were also raised about the government's proposals to deport non-UK nationals suspected of terrorism on the basis of diplomatic assurances to countries where they may be subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment.


The panel of judges and lawyers from around the world - set up by the International Commission of Jurists, whose UK member is Justice - heard from Home Secretary Charles Clarke, the Director of Public Prosecutions, members of the judiciary and representatives of human rights organisations and the legal profession, as part of its global investigation into the impact of terrorism and counter-terrorism measures on the rule of law and human rights.


Panel chairman Arthur Chaskalson, former Chief Justice of South Africa, said the main concerns raised related to the interference with normal judicial procedures and the greater use of intelligence information that a suspect was not allowed to see and was therefore unable to controvert.


But he added that the UK's institutional infrastructure, including an independent judiciary and legal profession, was an important balance.