Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security [F]irst, that there is the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence; second, that this intent is not solely that of one or several individuals but that of the association, group or political party as a collective entity; and third, that there exists an actual risk that such an act will be committed.141 States should take great care to avoid applying anti-terrorism laws to ordinary crimes.142 Anti-terrorism laws typically involve steep criminal penalties and may have added stigma due to being branded a terrorist. Relying on anti-terrorism laws to respond to violence associated with social unrest or discontent, such as violence that occurs at protests, will often constitute a disproportionate sanction and have an undue chilling effect on the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Norín Catrimán v. Chile143 Mapuche indigenous activists in Chile were engaged in social protests related to their claims to traditional lands and the presence of investment projects on those lands. Controversy over the projects lead to increased social unrest and conflicts in the region and there were a number of incidents where equipment or property of forestry companies was set on fire. Chile increasingly brought criminal charges against Mapuche leaders and activists involved in the protests, and prosecuted several for the crimes of terrorist arson and the threat of terrorist arson.144 These persons challenged these convictions before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In addition to fair trial and due process violations, the Court found a violation of the right to freedom of expression. This finding was partly because Chile had imposed a penalty on three of the leaders which banned them from managing a “social communication medium” for 15 years. However, the Court also specifically noted that the application of the CounterTerrorism Act was disproportionate. By applying terrorism charges, Chile could generate an “intimidating and inhibiting effect on the exercise of freedom of expression, derived from the specific effects of the undue application of the Counter-terrorism Act to members of the Mapuche indigenous people.”145 Such charges could create a “reasonable fear” in Report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and countering terrorism, note 137, para. 28. See also Report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and countering terrorism, note 138, para. 37 (“the threshold for these inchoate crimes requires the reasonable probability that the expression in question would succeed in inciting a terrorist act, thus establishing a degree of causal link or actual risk of the proscribed result occurring”). 142 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, 28 December 2005, para. 47, undocs.org/E/CN.4/2006/98. 143 29 May 2014, Series C, No. 279, paras. 79-81, https://bit.ly/3A0rPA2. 144 Ibid., para. 106. 145 Ibid., para. 376. 141 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 31