A/HRC/35/41 individuals identified as threats to national security, even though they are likely to experience serious persecution when they return to their country of origin. In one country, a deportation order was enforced even though the country’s own protection appeal body had determined that the deported person faced a risk of torture if returned to his country of origin.34 65. The Special Rapporteur learned that an Eastern European country had tried to keep refugees out of the country by invoking a state of emergency and empowering the police and military to support the asylum authority in instituting expedited border procedures in “transit zones” and limiting judicial review of asylum decisions issued by the Office of Immigration and Nationality. 35 At the same time, the country’s Criminal Code was amended to allow for the criminalization of refugees and migrants who enter the country irregularly through its southern border, allowing for a wide range of penalties, including prison sentences and mandatory expulsion, and resulting in criminal convictions for some refugees.36 66. The Special Rapporteur notes that, in May 2016, citing national security concerns, the Government of one East African country had announced the closure of a large refugee camp and the deportation of refugees to their home countries. 37 However, that decision was rendered null and void by the country’s high court. 38 The court held that closure of the camp would be illegally discriminatory because it targeted refugees of an ethnic minority. 39 67. The Special Rapporteur notes with concern that, in the Asia-Pacific region, fear of Muslims has also manifested itself in inhumane policies towards Muslim refugees from war-torn countries who are detained in offshore detention centres where human rights violations have been documented.40 C. Impact of overbroad counter-terrorism legislation on the human rights of racial minorities and those perceived as foreign 68. Apart from the marginalizing effects of xenophobic discourse and legislation, many countries have adopted laws with vague definitions of terrorism. These overly broad measures have led, in some instances, to the violation of fundamental human rights. 69. In some European countries, vague terminology has appeared in legal codes, making the limits on freedom of expression unclear. General terms like “glorification”, “public provocation” and “apology of terrorism” have begun to appear in charges of incitement to terrorism. 41 These vague criminal statutes have arisen from the efforts of right-wing populist initiatives in direct response to the fear of Muslim radicalization. One Western European country has removed the requirement that the incitement poses the actual risk of a terrorism-related offence being committed. 42 70. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that several African countries have also adopted vague and sweeping counter-terrorism statutes. 43 Ambiguous definitions of 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 14 Amnesty International, “Upturned lives” (2016). Ibid. Ibid. See www.refugeesinternational.org/advocacy-letters-1/2017/2/9/dadaab?rq=dadaab. Ibid. Ibid. See www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa12/4934/2016/en/. Bibi van Ginkel, “Incitement to terrorism: a matter of prevention or repression?”, ICCT Research Paper (August 2011). See also www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/world/europe/spain-europe-protestfree-speech.html. Amnesty International, “Upturned lives” (2016). See www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/human_rights/counterterrorism_ human_rights_advocacy.authcheckdam.pdf; also www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ afriqueantiterr483eng2007.pdf.