A/HRC/46/36 crimes. The creation of “suspect communities” has also created “internal suspect bodies”, within the household where family members turn inwards and view one another through the lens of the State.42 This is a common result of discriminatory law enforcement where groups of peoples begin to self-regulate their realization of other freedoms, including freedom of expression and freedom of religion, so as not to draw the attention of the State. 12. The arrest and detention of family members during counter-terrorism or extremism actions by the State have a particular impact on families and the sanctity of the home. The Special Rapporteur notes that she has been consistently made aware of practices such as early morning disruptive arrests 43 and culturally and socially inappropriate behaviour towards women and children in their homes, including exposure of bodies and denigration of beliefs and the organization of the home, causing psychological trauma and stigma. She is particularly aware that, in cases of wrongful or mistaken security operations, repairs to damage caused to homes have been slow, apologies rarely forthcoming and other remedies not provided. Following arrest and detention, detainees’ family members often lack information and are given no legal basis for arrest, incommunicado detention is frequent in counter-terrorism contexts and rendition remains an ongoing and regrettable practice in cases where terrorism charges are laid.44 She stresses that women with young children who are detained in high-security settings face extraordinary barriers to functioning as parents and maintaining family unity.45 The Special Rapporteur particularly highlights the ongoing and life-long effects on the family members of 40 persons still detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, many of whom were either not initially charged, not charged until years later or have not been charged at all.46 They experience unending violations of their right to family life, a practice which should not be tolerated by a civilized society. She affirms the human rights violations that follow for family members when their son, brother, wife or sister is subjected to torture while being held on terrorism or extremism charges. 47 She highlights the long-term human rights consequences of recent legislation in multiple countries which seeks extended prison sentences for terrorism and adds cumulative administrative measures after criminal sentences are completed, which will have a substantial impact on family relationships and the human rights of individuals within families. 48 13. Counter-terrorism financing laws have been shown to negatively affect women’s rights organizations in ways that hinder the civic space for advocacy, the advancement of gender equality and the empowerment of women.49 Such impacts further limit their ability to deliver equality and rights protection to women and girls. The Special Rapporteur recalls previous observations50 detailing the negative impact of counter-terrorism financing laws. It is not only the “small scale” of women’s civil society work that is perceived as a risk to donors and financial institutions, but also precisely because of their “divergent voices” or challenging of traditional gender norms which can result in backlash and governmental efforts to curb women’s freedom of expression and association.51 When combined with the See, e.g., Mary J. Hickman and others, “Social cohesion and the notion of ‘suspect communities’: a study of the experiences and impacts of being ‘suspect’ for Irish communities and Muslim communities in Britain”, Critical Studies on Terrorism; and www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23130&LangID=E. 43 A/HRC/40/52/Add.4, para. 25. 44 See, e.g., A/HRC/WGAD/2020/41; A/HRC/WGAD/2020/6; A/HRC/WGAD/2018/39; A/HRC/WGAD/2018/30; A/HRC/WGAD/2018/2; A/HRC/WGAD/2017/78; A/HRC/WGAD/2013/10; A/HRC/13/30/Add.1, p. 145; and E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.1, p. 23. 45 See A/HRC/WGAD/2020/14. 46 See A/HRC/13/42. See also, e.g., A/HRC/WGAD/2013/10; A/HRC/13/30/Add.1, pp. 140 and 145; and E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.1, p. 23. 47 United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Arar v. Ashcroft, decision of 30 June 2008. 48 See https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=25443; and https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=25375. 49 Duke Law International Human Rights Clinic and Women Peacemakers Program, “Tightening the purse strings: what countering terrorism financing costs gender equality and security” (2017). 50 A/64/211, para. 42. 51 Ibid. See also A/HRC/WGAD/2020/33. 42 7