other serious criminal offences). These safeguards are not available for children over 17 and New Zealand criminal law has been frequently criticised for this as being in contravention of the “best interests of the child” principle expressed in Article 3 of the CRC. 2. Incorporating into the general law provisions that give the Police and other agencies wider powers, which were introduced and designed to deal with terrorism, can have the effect of eroding the rights of those who are not terrorists. 3. Consideration be given to implementing the Law Commission recommendation that there be a repeal of the International Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act 1987. 4. The review of the security risk certificate provisions in the Immigration Act 1999 heralded by the Prime Minister be conducted and that the human rights implications of the legislation be examined in the course of that review. Philippines The Advisory Council of Jurists recommends that: 1. National security concerns, while important, need to be balanced with the human rights guarantees in the Philippines Constitution and international treaties to which the Philippines is a party, as well as customary rules of international law. Care must be taken that counter-terrorism measures are not used to restrict fundamental rights or to target vulnerable groups. 2. Counter-terrorism measures should be promulgated by parliamentary legislation, which allows scope for public participation, rather than by Executive decree. 3. Any detention in respect of counter-terrorism measures should not be arbitrary as the term has been defined in relation to the prohibition contained in the ICCPR and which is likely to have become a principle of customary international law to which all States are bound. 4. In administering counter-terrorism measures that may apply to children, care must be taken to ensure that the “best interests of the child” principle is a primary consideration. 29