A/73/362 been violated by counter-terrorism law and practices (see A/70/674 and A/HRC/16/51). 5. In 2006, the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the General Assembly established respect for human rights and the rule of law as one of its four pillars, recognizing a human rights-based approach as key to global efforts (see resolution 60/288). Notwithstanding that recognition, measures that have since been adopted by States continue to erode respect for civil liberties. Various measures have expanded the ambit of criminalized activity, with ever-increasing attention being paid to early intervention tactics intended to dissuade individuals potentially on a path towards supporting or committing violent extremist acts. However, a lack of consensus definitions for key concepts, such as “radicalization” or “violent extremism”, has undermined both the effectiveness of various measures and the ability to assess their compliance with State obligations under international human rights law. 6. Human rights monitors have criticized initiatives to prevent and counter violent extremism for their erosion of civil liberties, their propensity for perpetuating discrimination against several religious or belief communities, their lack of transparency and accountability and for securitizing religion. 2 In his 2016 report on the human rights impact of initiatives to prevent and counter violent extremism, the former Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson, highlighted elements of such programmes that continued to infringe on a range of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion or belief. He concluded that “a wide array of legislative, administrative and policy measure s are pursued that can have a serious negative impact on manifold human rights ... [and] can stigmatize groups and communities, undermining the support that Governments need to successfully implement their programmes, and having a counter-productive effect” (see A/HRC/31/65, para. 54). 7. The question of how to effectively address national security exigencies while respecting human rights constitutes a pivotal challenge to human security today. Contrary to the discourse which posits freedom of religion or belief (and other human rights) and national security to be competing and mutually exclusive values that have to be “balanced” against each other, various mandate-holders, including the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, have over the past three decades recognized the complementary, interdependent and mutually reinforcing relationship between the promotion and protection of human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, and national security. 8. Moreover, it should be noted that “national security” is not a permissible ground for restricting manifestations of religion or belief under article 18, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, restrictions on a number of rights that are related to the enjoyment of the right to freed om of religion or belief, such as freedom of expression or association, are permissible to ensure national security if the further conditions of the related limitation clauses are also met. Regardless, the right to freely manifest religion or belief can on ly be limited if the following five conditions are strictly met: (a) the measure in question is prescribed by law (i.e., it is accessible, foreseeable and drafted with sufficient precision to enable a rational person to regulate his or her conduct); (b) it is necessary for the purposes __________________ 2 4/22 See, for example, Amnesty International, Dangerously Disproportionate: The Ever-Expanding National Security State in Europe (London, 2017). See also the report of the former Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir, warning about the counterproductive impact of religious profiling in her report to the Human Rights Council (see A/HRC/7/10/Add.3, para. 41). 18-14697