the risk of the UK being in breach of its obligations under the Convention Against Torture if the Special Immigration Appeals Commission or any other court were to admit evidence which has been obtained by torture;

the adequacy of the safeguards against injustice in the SIAC process, in light of the fact that one individual was detained without charge for fifteen months before the error in authorising his detention was established;

the fact that special advocates are appointed by the Attorney General, who has personally represented the Government before the SIAC, and the rigidity of the rule prohibiting any contact between the detainee and the special advocate;

the discrimination inherent in a measure which targets only non-nationals, and the disproportionate impact of the use of Terrorism Act powers on the Muslim community.

the absolute ban on the use of intercept evidence is disproportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting intelligence sources and methods and should be relaxed;

an examining magistrate model would be unlikely to assist with the problem of dealing with sensitive intelligence material within the criminal process, but consideration should be given to greater use of a security-cleared prosecutor with a view to facilitating greater use of material derived from intelligence sources;

further consideration should be given to other process changes to facilitate prosecution, even if these require some modification of the ordinary criminal process in order to deal with the problem of sensitive intelligence material.

it is not persuaded that a new criminal offence of acts preparatory to terrorism would facilitate prosecutions which are not currently possible;

treating terrorism as an aggravating factor in sentencing may be an appropriate measure, subject to safeguards including retention of 'beyond reasonable doubt' as the appropriate standard of proof;

the use of more intense overt surveillance, subject to safeguards, is preferable to indefinite detention because it is less restrictive of liberty;

the use of civil restriction orders should be considered, accompanied by appropriate procedural safeguards including access to an independent judicial determination and a test of strict necessity.