@ Sana Rasool
I feel your outline is based on only one side of the picture, I maybe wrong though. Did you include some points manifesting the HR-abuse due to the terrorists' outfits? As this war on terror is actually between two groups, broadly, one, the pro-secularism faction (or you may call it the Western faction or whatever is convenient to you) and the second, the conservative (Islamist) faction. Now, just think, if you only go on discussing the HR-abuse due to invasions, assaults of Western allies and ignore those abuses cause of Islamist factions, then probably you would get half of the passing marks in your essay.
(If you have discussed in there both sides of the picture, then I am unable to comprehend what went wrong with the checker.)
Another thing I would point it here is: most of the candidates took not-a-very-balanced approach in this particular essay. Let me explicate it further; many candidates discussed HR-abuse in essay and called it very very bad and gave measures to hamper them. However, they ignored the fact, that terrorism is actually an abnormal phenomenon, which indeed requires some abnormal measures to be curbed. For instance, citizens have to bear some HR-abuses while having ongoing abnormal measures to curb terrorism. So, in that particular essay, I think, one should have not favored completely hampering the HR-abuse in extreme and similarly, should have at least favored upto some extent the abnormally strict measures. (those within in limits somehow, I don't want to give examples here, you must know it.) I mean to say, the balanced approach would be feasible enough to satisfy any kind of checker, whether a pro-WOT or anti-WOT.
These are my opinions, so, are not the ultimately right ones. Everyone can differ by correcting me.