Report on the Democratic Oversight of the Security Services
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Strasbourg, 15 December 2015 CDL-AD(2015)010 Or. Engl. Studies no. 388 / 2006 and no.719/2013 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) REPORT ON THE DEMOCRATIC OVERSIGHT OF THE SECURITY SERVICES Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 71st Plenary Session (Venice, 1-2 June 2007) On the basis of comments by Mr Iain Cameron (Substitute member, Sweden) Mr Olivier Dutheillet de Lamothe (Substitute member, France) Mr Jan Helgesen (Member, Norway) Mr Valery Zorkin (Member, Russian Federation) Mr Ian Leigh (Expert, United Kingdom) Mr Franz Matscher (Expert, Austria) Updated by the Venice Commission at its 102nd Plenary Session (Venice, 20-21 March 2015) On the basis of comments by Mr Iain Cameron (Member, Sweden) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. http://venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2015)010 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 4 The need to control security services .......................................................................................... 4 Accountability .............................................................................................................................. 4 Parliamentary Accountability ....................................................................................................... 5 Judicial review and authorisation ................................................................................................ 6 Expert bodies accountability ....................................................................................................... 7 Complaints mechanisms ............................................................................................................. 7 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 8 II. Previous Council of Europe work in this area ............................................................. 9 a. The Venice Commission study ......................................................................... 9 b. The Group of Specialists on Internal Security Services (PC-S-SEC) of the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) .................................................. 10 c. The Council of Europe Secretary General’s supplementary report under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the question of secret detention and transport of detainees suspected of terrorist acts, notably by or at the instigation of foreign agencies ................................................................................................... 10 III. The scope of the present study ................................................................................ 10 IV. Is there a need for (improved) democratic control? .................................................. 11 V. Accountability ........................................................................................................... 16 A. The notion and forms of accountability ............................................................................ 16 B. General problems in ensuring accountability ................................................................... 17 C. Constitutional and Organizational Contexts ..................................................................... 19 a. In general ........................................................................................................ 19 b. The organisation of the security services ........................................................ 20 c. The form of the mandate of the security services ........................................... 21 d. Security priorities ............................................................................................ 22 e. Internal control ................................................................................................ 23 f. Governmental control ..................................................................................... 23 g. Particular accountability problems relating to International Co-operation between Intelligence Agencies ................................................................................. 24 VI. Accountability and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights ................ 26 VII. Internal and Governmental Controls as part of overall accountability systems ......... 29 VIII. Parliamentary accountability..................................................................................... 33 A. In general ........................................................................................................................ 33 B. Mandate and functions of the parliamentary oversight body............................................ 34 C. Membership of the Oversight Body ................................................................................. 38 D. Oversight and International Co-operation ........................................................................ 39 E. Other Areas where the Parliament can be given a role in Accountability ......................... 42 F. Developments since 2007 ............................................................................................... 43 IX. Judicial Review and Authorization ............................................................................ 44 X. Accountability to Expert bodies ................................................................................ 50 - 3 - CDL-AD(2015)010 XI. Complaints mechanisms .......................................................................................... 55 XII. Concluding remarks ................................................................................................. 57 CDL-AD(2015)010 - 4 - Executive Summary The need to control security services 1. The maintenance of the internal and external security of the State is vital and essential for the protection of the other values and interests of the State. In order to anticipate, prevent or protect itself against threats to its national security, a State needs effective intelligence and security services: intelligence is thus an inescapable necessity for modern governments. 2. Security agencies are expected to collect as much information as possible on threats to the State; this involves collecting information on individuals. Security services therefore, by their very nature, impinge on individual rights. It is therefore essential that there be internal limits as well as external limits to their activities. 3. In addition, the terrorist threats of the post 9/11 era have brought about new security challenges. Intelligence is one of the main weapons the State has in the struggle against terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. A transnational and network-based response from the States is necessary, and inter-agency co-operation must be enhanced. A tighter democratic control, and a different kind of control, is nowadays necessary. 4. Security services naturally receive instructions from the government. They need to be adequately controlled by the executive in order to avoid that they develop a “State within the State” mentality. Indeed, they are, and must be, equipped with considerable technological tools and enjoy exceptional powers. They have a natural tendency to over-collect information, and the individuals must be protected against an abusive or illegitimate use of the information collected about them. 5. Security services have inbred in them a potential of abuse of State power. The subjectivity and flexibility of the notion of “national security”, combined with its vital importance to the State, mean that governments have a wide margin of manoeuvre in this area. They could be tempted to use the security services to pursue illegitimate aims. It is thus necessary to establish mechanisms to prevent political abuse, while providing for effective governance of the agencies. Accountability 6. Security services must be “accountable”. A working definition of accountability is “being liable to be required to give an account or explanation of actions and, where appropriate, to suffer the consequences, take the blame or undertake to put matter right, if it should appear that errors have been made”. 7. In simplified form, four different forms of State accountability can be identified: - parliamentary accountability - judicial accountability - expert accountability - complaints mechanisms. The latter two forms are supplements or replacements for the first two forms of accountability. 8. Making secret services accountable presents special problems. A large degree of secrecy must accompany national security policy and operations, which increases the government control at the expense of the legislative power, and insulates the former from criticism. 9. Control even by government is made difficult by the very nature of the work of the secret services: the government is dependent on the special knowledge of the experts. - 5 - CDL-AD(2015)010 10. Control by the courts becomes then even more important, but the ordinary courts, to the extent their formal competence to review decisions in this field is not blocked by procedural devices (immunity, secrecy of documentation etc), are often faced with great difficulties reviewing in practice the large discretion which is given to the government in this area. 11. Monitoring the assessment of intelligence is a difficult exercise in itself, given that what needs