No, describing their report as a "ban", is an exaggeration, regardless of if it is modified by "ordered", "recommended" or "advocated".
It is more like a suggestion to de-emphasize the "Muslim" aspect of terrorists.
The ECRI REPORT ON THE UNITED KINGDOM says:
Hate speech in some traditional media, particularly tabloid newspapers, continues to be a problem, with biased or ill-founded information disseminated about vulnerable groups, which may contribute to perpetuating stereotypes. An independent press regulator has not been set up. A particularly high number of violent racist incidents occurred in 2013 with a sharp rise in anti-Muslim violence.
....
The Sun newspaper has also published inflammatory anti-Muslim headlines, such as its front page of 23 November 2015 which read “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis”, along with a picture of a masked terrorist wielding a knife.
....
ECRI regrets that a way has not been found to establish an independent press regulator and that, as a result, certain tabloids continue to publish offensive material, as indicated above. ECRI urges the media to take stock of the importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable groups. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety. In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside University [reference 50] suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations. [footnote 51]
where footnote 51 is:
The study suggests that more restrained media reporting of the Sydney hostage situation in 2014, in which the hostage taker, who claimed to be acting on behalf of Islamic State, was swiftly and repeatedly identified as mentally ill, may have played a role in minimising the backlash against the Muslim community.
....
For example, while ECRI is satisfied that the large number of complaints against the anti-Muslim headline in the Sun newspaper (see § 41) were upheld by IPSO in respect of clause 1 (accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, it notes that clause 12 was not considered as there was no pejorative or prejudicial reference to any individual.
So the word "ban", is an exaggeration, regardless of if it is modified by "ordered", "recommended" or "advocated". It is more like a suggestion to deemphasize the "Muslim" aspect of Muslim terrorists.
