The dialectical relationship between freedom and security in the context of the fight against terrorism sheds light on the ambiguity and the difficulties to articulate these notions, reflecting this specific dilemma to democratic regimes: how to safeguard democracy without destroying it.

The question on the protection of human rights in the context of the fight against terrorism brings to the forefront the figure of the judge, who bears the particular mission of restraining the arbitrary actions of the executive power and the exaggerations of a “terrorised” legislator. Facing the remarkable force of terrorism, whose legal definition remains vague, the answer of national governments essentially consists in adopting those means and measures which openly defy human rights and the principles of the rule of law.

Studying the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, whose approach has marked the debate on the protection of human rights in the context of fighting terrorism in Europe and beyond, permits to reflect upon whether the knowledge of the recent case-law, especially after the occurrences of the 11^th of September 2001, continues the precedent and, eventually, in what way the predominance of the preventive aspect of anti-terrorism measures has managed to influence the judge’s control, who shall find the balance between safeguarding rights and freedoms and the considerations tracing back to the idea of the necessity to defend the democratic society. Before the risk of considerable retrogression of the jurisdictional control and of a systematic differentiation of the breadth of the protection of rights and freedoms due to the intensity of the menace that terrorism poses, the response of the European Court of Human Rights proves that the assertion of the conventional principles and of the primacy of protecting those values inherent to human rights and to the democratic society, transcending the European Convention as a whole.