States have an obligation to provide protection against terrorist attacks. Human Rights standards impose positive obligations on States to ensure the right to life, protection from torture and other human rights and freedoms. Acts of terrorism and attempts at fighting it, no doubt, are likely to result in infringement of fundamental rights. This is not to suggest that an act of terrorism amounts to a failure to protect by the State. International law have attempted to balance the interest of the State in fighting terrorism and the duty to protect human rights. The case law of International Courts and Tribunals, as well as Domestic Courts, including the works of the United Nations, attests to these efforts. In this regard, practice recognize and acknowledge the fact that counter-terrorism measures have resulted and do result in; i. Prolonged detention ii. Denial of the right to challenge the rightfulness of the detention, iii. Denial of access to legal representation, monitoring of conversation with lawyers, iv. Incommunicado detention or ill treatment or even torture of detainees as well as inhuman and degrading treatment, v. Use of lethal force resulting in death. These counter – terrorism measures may result in derogation from human rights norms. However, in determining whether a State is justified in such derogation, the International Courts and Tribunals usually consider certain factors which include: i. Legality i.e. whether there is a legal basis for interference with rights ii. Justification: This considers whether there are justifiable grounds for restricting the application of fundamental rights. In this regards, justifiable grounds include, national security, public order, morality, health and the right of others. iii. Necessity: Necessity does not mean indispensability or reasonableness. It implies a pressing social need for the restriction of rights and that pressing need must accord with requirements of democratic society whose hallmark is tolerance, pluralism, and broad –mindedness. 38