A/72/287 terrorism context. However, the Special Rapporteur recalls that the extent of this contribution depends on a variety of factors, including the mandat e and statutory powers of relevant mechanisms, the availability of adequate resources and the existence of independent civilian mechanisms within multilevel systems of oversight. 83 Role of the judiciary 70. The Special Rapporteur wishes to underline the central role of judicial review in combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination in the context of countering terrorism. He is pleased to note that many States empower the courts to strike down any laws that are incompatible with human rights standards, or to adopt an interpretation of the legislation that is in compliance with international human rights law. 84 71. In some countries, the judiciary has used these powers to review counter terrorism legislation or provisions. For example, the High Court of Kenya prevented the planned closure of a refugee camp allegedly for reasons of national security. The Court held that a closure would be illegal and discriminatory as it targeted refugees of one particular ethnic minority. 85 In 2015, the country’s High Court also struck down proposed amendments to its anti-terrorism legislation. 86 72. Since the introduction of the state of emergency, the French courts have played an important role in contesting house arrest measures against individuals deemed to be a threat to national security. This is particularly important as these administrative measures do not require prior judicial authorization and have reportedly been used disproportionately against Muslims and other minorities. 87 French courts may also be key in reviewing plans to normalize emergency powers by codifying them in normal criminal and administrative law. 88 73. The judiciary in the United States of America was instrumental in temporarily suspending an executive order which planned to ban nationals of seven Muslimmajority countries from entering the country. Following legal proceedings in several State entities, the country’s Supreme Court has recently allowed a modified order to enter into effect. However, the Court imposed significant limitations and will hear arguments on the case later in 2017. 89 74. Similarly, a recent Supreme Court ruling in the United Kingdom strengthened the procedural rights regarding out-of-country deportation appeals. The Court clarified that those affected must be granted the right to appeal in a domestic court before being deported. While the case concerned foreign criminals, the reasoning applies equally to anyone being deported or removed, including terrorist suspects affected by nationality-stripping measures. 90 __________________ 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 18/23 Counter-Terrorism Implementation Taskforce Working Group on Protecting Human Rights while Countering Terrorism, “Basic human rights reference guide”; A/HRC/16/51; A/HRC/14/46. Counter-Terrorism Implementation Taskforce Working Group on Protecting Human Rights while Countering Terrorism, “Basic human rights reference guide”, para. 57; A/HRC/16/51. See https://perma.cc/6775-C3CM. See Peter Kagwanja, “Ruling on anti-terrorism law a triumph for Kenya’s judiciary”, Daily Nation, 28 February 2015. Available from https://perma.cc/JK7E-WFCZ. See, for example, https://goo.gl/YT71yK. Human Rights Watch, “France: don’t ‘normalize’ emergency powers”. Sabrina Siddiqui, “Why the Supreme Court’s travel ban ruling may not be a win for Trump”, The Guardian, 26 June 2017. United Kingdom, Supreme Court, Kiarie and Byndloss, R (on the applications of) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2017] UKSC 42, Judgment of 14 June 2017. 17-13397