Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, Terrorism represents a serious threat to security and stability, freedom and democracy. The tragic events of September 11th presented this to us in the most violent and shocking way possible. Allow me therefore to be clear from the outset: There can be no doubt that states have a duty to combat terrorism in order to protect themselves and their citizens. The emergence of terrorist networks and other non-state actors as a major source of conflict and instability creates tremendous challenges for our societies. It is evident that these new challenges must be addressed with a variety of new tools and methods to be effective. Since 11 September the traditional configuration of international conflict has been blurred: there are no recognisable geographic or national delimitations, no uniforms, no armies, no state structures on the enemy side. The traditional boundaries between criminal offense and act of war, have been challenged, leading, among other things, to uncertainty on the treatment of captives. This new type of conflict undermines all established norms - international and national. A clear legal basis, procedures and modi operandi to be applied to such asymetrical conflicts have yet to be defined. Needless to say that all civilized states and their relevant structures - be it the military, law enforcement or the judiciary - are being challenged in an unprecedented way and are urged to develop appropriate responses at the national and international level. Because traditional methods may no longer be deemed sufficiently effective, there is a great temptation to bypass potential legal obstacles in favour of applying the principle "the end justifies the means". Of course we must always bear in mind what international terrorism is attacking: the very values of the civilized world. Besides being a crime against humanity, attacks such as those of September 11th and subsequent attempts to create devastation and chaos, e.g. with "dirty bombs", is a negation of the values of a world which is - however imperfectly - governed by sets of rules and standards which could be called the "international rule of law". It is therefore everyone's wish that states develop - rather sooner than later - effective ways to eradicate terrorism - or at least diminish its threat to less treacherous levels. Unconventional methods are certainly required and necessary in this context, but not at the cost of democratic accountability. It is important that state responses to terrorism do not run contrary to the values and human rights standards our governments have committed themselves to upholding, or undermine the international mechanisms in place to ensure respect for these values and standards. A balance must therefore be found, ensuring that we do not backtrack on our established fundamental values. Rule of law and civil rights must not become victims of "friendly fire". In the 2001 Bucharest Action Plan all OSCE participating States committed themselves to respect international and human rights law in the fight against terrorism. Nevertheless we have observed in several countries across the whole OSCE region a worrying tendency not to take human rights and rule of law commitments too seriously in responses to the threat of terrorism. Some countries have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, new legislation or practices that appear to violate fair trial guarantees or other human rights standards. This includes the indefinite detention of large numbers of alleged terrorists of foreign nationality, the setting up of special military courts with limited fair trial guarantees for non-citizens suspected of terrorism, and a lack of respect for international humanitarian law in the determination of the status of certain groups of prisoners. It also includes the use of broad definitions of "terrorism" which opens the door for abusive interpretation. In addition, a growing trend has been observed of taking advantage of the fact that terrorist acts do not fall neatly into a particular category of law. The result can be a pick and mix style response with states choosing to apply the body of law which best suits their purposes rather than applying in good faith the body of law which provides the most safeguards. This can lead to discrimination as suspects charged with the same offenses end up being tried under different legal regimes with different levels of safeguards. Elsewhere, the fight against terrorism appears to be being used as a pretext to tighten the grip on the opposition or civil society and to restrict fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, or freedom of association. There are trends of tightening registration requirements for religious groups, even though they might not be involved in, or preaching, extremism. We are also observing a clear increase, across the whole OSCE region, in extradition and requests for extradition in connection with charges linked to terrorism. Often in such cases, there is a clear lack of credible evidence and insufficient guarantees as regards fair trial conditions in the requesting country, as well as a risk of torture or the application of the death penalty. There are also attempts in several countries to tighten control of NGOs and charity organizations by requiring them to register with the authorities and receive authorization for any foreign grants they receive, irrespective of whether there is any concrete suspicion of terrorist activity. Such attempts contradict the importance that the OSCE participating States accord to the role of civil society and the fundamental value of religious belief. In this context, and as a recent positive example, we very much welcome the decision by the President of Azerbaijan to reject draft amendments to the grant law that would have placed excessive restrictions on civil society development in the country. Why do we place so much emphasis on the need for a balanced approach to the new challenges posed by terrorism? Why do we stress so much the necessity of an approach that does not neglect human rights concerns? We often hear the argument that national security must be an absolute priority; and that in order to maintain security in difficult times human rights and international law could unfortunately not always be fully respected. We cannot subscribe to these views. Firstly, it is dangerous to go down the slippery road of ignoring international human rights obligations because it would undermine an international legal order which has been painstakingly developed over the past decades. This would cause lasting damage to the international human rights cause. It would also mean relinquishing the moral high ground and creating dangerous precedents, which in turn would result in losing the ability to credibly address human rights concerns elsewhere. The "acquis" in the field of international rule of law reached in the 20th century is at stake here. The harmful long-term consequences of such an approach clearly outweigh the limited and questionable advantages it might bring about in the short-term. This is all the more true as international human rights law is flexible enough to allow exceptional measures in situations where national security is in danger - within certain clearly defined limits, of course, and in line with the appropriate mechanisms. Secondly, lasting security and stability is not possible without respect for human rights and the rule of law. Experience has shown that conflict and instability are often caused by a deterioration of the human rights situation in a country. This is what turned Afghanistan into a breeding ground for terrorism, and what led to the conflict in Kosovo, to give just two examples. Without democratic institutions, a functioning judiciary and active civil society, it will be impossible to address the root causes of terrorism and prevent religious or political extremism. We will not succeed in combating terrorism in a sustainable way if we limit our responses to law enforcement or resort to repressive measures only. By taking recourse to repression, one may be able to keep the lid on the pot for a little longer, but it will also increase the pressure inside and potentially lead to the pot boiling over in an uncontrollable way. We will not succeed in combating terrorism without a determined and co-ordinated international effort, but disrespect for international law and standards will hardly achieve this goal. Clamping down on legitimate and non-violent dissent, indiscriminate harassment of certain ethnic or religious groups and other similar excessive measures taken in the name of the fight against terrorism are not only contrary to international law; they also play into the hands of extremists exploiting frustration and discontent among those in society who feel they are victims of intolerance and persecution. In several regions around the globe, including in the OSCE area, there exist grey zones in which any form of rule of law and public control is virtually absent. In these zones organized crime activities such as drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings or illegal arms trade can flourish, sometimes with the knowledge or even direct support of individual members of government structures. We know that transnational organized crime and terrorism are closely interlinked and can only benefit from such an environment. Fighting terrorism therefore also means cutting off possible financial sources of terrorist networks by bringing these grey zones back into the realm of the rule of law and state control. This also means that fighting corruption must be a priority as well. What we need - each state individually as well as the international community as a whole - is a comprehensive set of instruments to fight terrorism directly and to address its root causes. The Bishkek Declaration and the Bishkek Programme for Action, adopted in December 2001, lead the way for such a comprehensive approach. The Bishkek Declaration clearly states that "the struggle against terrorism requires joint and comprehensive efforts of the international community, in full conformity with […] obligations under international law, and […] OSCE commitments." The Bishkek Programme of Action includes measures related to law enforcement and economic development. But it also places a heavy emphasis on human rights and stresses the need for strengthening the rule of law, building democratic institutions, enhancing the capacity of the judiciary, engaging civil society and promoting tolerance and dialogue among religions and cultures. These documents should be considered as more than just lip service. The OSCE with its comprehensive security concept, which recognizes the close links between the politico-military, economic and "human" dimensions of security, is well-placed to assist participating States in their fight against terrorism in line with their commitments as OSCE states, and to contribute in its field of specialization to international counter-terrorism efforts. Within its anti-terrorist "road map", the OSCE/ODIHR, together with other OSCE institutions and field missions, is implementing a variety of assistance programmes with the broader goal of developing democratic, inclusive societies based on the rule of law which would be less susceptible to political or religious extremism. One of the focus areas is promoting tolerance and inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue. To this end, we are organizing a series of national round tables on this topic which will culminate in a large regional conference with representatives from all major religious groups in autumn this year in Baku, to give you just one example of our current activities on the ground. We believe that we have to invest more in fostering dialogue between people of different religions and cultures with the aim of reaching out to each other and explaining our values in a better way. The threat of terrorism requires a multitude of responses. Some of these responses might touch the borders of what is admissible in a democratic society based on the rule of law. It can be quite a delicate matter at times to find the right balance between legitimate security concerns on the one hand and the protection of human rights on the other. Even well-developed democracies have been struggling to find appropriate responses to the changed security environment. However, it is imperative that we always remain aware of the inherent risk involved in fighting terrorism, i.e. the risk of undermining the very basis of democracy by measures that have been actually designed for its defense. After September 11th we need more respect for human rights and the rule of law, not less. It has often been said that the fight against terrorism is not about a clash of cultures, but about a clash of different values. If we really mean that, we must not allow the erosion of the principle of universality of human rights, which forms the core of our value system and the foundation of our legitimacy when fighting terrorism. Allowing this to happen would be a mistake of historic dimensions. Thank you very much for your attention.