11. NEED FOR LIMITATION – Before going into detail on the relevance, research questions and choice of countries for comparison, we have to delineate the scope of the topic. As explained, there are two main types of counter-terrorism measures. We will first look at which administrative measures fall within the scope and then at which criminal law measures do so. Since there is a myriad of measures on both sides of the equation, certain choices have been made in order to make an in-depth analysis feasible.

12. ONLY ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES WHICH LIMIT LIBEUTY AND FREEDOM of MOVEMENT – ‘Administrative measures’ is a very broad concept, and we thus need to limit it in order to clearly define the scope of the research. These measures can affect many human rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial64 or the freedom of expression. The potential sentences for terrorist precursor offences are however severe. We therefore need to compare them to the most invasive administrative measures: measures that impact the right to liberty of the people subject to them. The discussion on measures like these focusses on two fundamental rights: the right to liberty (Art. 5 ECHR) and the free movement of persons (Art. 2 of the 4th protocol to the ECHR).

13. ONLY MEASURES WITH DIRECT EFFECT ON THOSE RIGHTS – This demarcation of the scope about measures that impact the right to liberty or free movement of the person subject to them still casts a wide net. E.g. the freezing of assets restricts a person's free movement too since they cannot travel anywhere if they do not have access to the funds to do so.