-the Center on 3/23/2014 addressed the Government, and the Senate and the House of Representatives, whereby it expressed its opinion about the draft of the Prevention of Terrorism Law, which still raises wide legally constitutional controversy , and needs a comprehensive review, especially in terms of : (a)The third article that came overly vague and broad. It considered several acts as terrorist offenses, making it subject to discretion and interpretation and hence unpredictable, open to abuse, and in violation the principle of the legality of crimes and penalties, (b) Article 8, which grants the State Security Court the jurisdiction to consider the crimes of terrorism, which their parties are civilians, whereas it is essentially that all cases of civilians shall be heard by civilian courts who have the competence to do so, (c) of Article 7, which considered a contravention of the general norms in the penal law, such the rules of “criminal complicity” and the general provision on attempting to commit a criminal offence. This was done in an effort to bring the Jordanian legislation in harmony with the international human rights standards . The Center believes that the Prevention of Terrorism Law No. (18) For the year 2014 in force includes many of the problems that can be highlighted as follows : 1- The expansion of the concept of a terrorist act under Article (2) of the Law, beyond the definition of a terrorist act stipulated in the Penal Code under Article 147. It is well recognized that expansion of the definition raises a conflict in the legislative system during the application of the penal provisions, which constitute a source of equality and infringes on the principles of fair trial for the concerned litigants. 2- Overlooking the concept of criminal intent ( mens rea) under Article (2) of the Law, which entitles a judge to apply the legal provisions on ordinary acts that may not actually amount terrorist crimes, and hence, results in the unfound attribution of terrorism for the accused person. This is in violation of the international standards that ensure the fair trial guarantees and not to prosecute the crimes except upon a criminal conspiracy (Article 14 of the ICCPR, and Articles (7) and (11) of the UDHR, and Article 2 of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. 3. Describing terrorist acts by vaguely-worded and broad terms such as the "public order", "jeopardizing the safety of the community," “sow discord" " disturbing public order ", "terrorizing people." These phrases have wide significance; hence open to misuse when invoking them during the application of the legal provisions and leads to considering any action or activity as an act of terrorism! This violates with the international standards, specifically articles (4 and 14) of the ICCPR which ensures that authorities shall not to take any measures that would prejudice the rights guaranteed, or derogate in any form the guarantees of fair trial. 4. Article (3/ b) of the Law considers any act capable of destabilizing the relations of Jordan with a foreign state an act of terrorism. This would allow the inclusion of 18