A/HRC/14/46 (c) Measures taken must be proportionate to the objective. This requires that intelligence services select the measure that least restricts human rights, and take special care to minimize the adverse impact of any measures on the rights of individuals, including, in particular, persons who are not suspected of any wrongdoing; (d) No measure taken by intelligence services may violate peremptory norms of international law or the essence of any human right; (e) There is a clear and comprehensive system for the authorization, monitoring and oversight of the use of any measure that restricts human rights; (f) Individuals whose rights may have been restricted by intelligence services are able to address complaints to an independent institution and seek an effective remedy. 27. Under national law, most intelligence services are permitted to undertake activities that restrict human rights. These powers are primarily found in the area of intelligence collection but also include law enforcement measures, the use of personal data and the sharing of personal information. National laws contain human rights safeguards for two main reasons: to limit interference with the rights of individuals to what is permissible under international human rights law; and to prevent the arbitrary or unfettered use of these measures.94 28. Any measure restricting human rights must be prescribed by a law that is compatible with international human rights standards and in force at the time the measure is taken.95 Such a law outlines these measures in narrow and precise terms, sets out strict conditions for their use and establishes that their use must be directly linked to the mandate of an intelligence service.96 29. Many national laws also include the requirement that any intelligence measures restricting human rights must be necessary in a democratic society.97 Necessity entails that the use of any measures is clearly and rationally linked to the protection of legitimate national security interests as defined in national law.98 30. The principle of proportionality is enshrined in laws of many States and requires that any measures that restrict human rights must be proportionate to the specified (and legally permissible) aims.99 In order to ensure that measures taken by intelligence services are proportionate, many States require their intelligence services to use the least intrusive means possible for the achievement of a given objective.100 31. Intelligence services are prohibited by national law from using any measures that would violate international human rights standards and/or peremptory norms of 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 18 Siracusa Principles (footnote 38). See practices nos. 3 and 4; Croatia (footnote 2), art. 33; Lithuania (footnote 9), art. 5; Council of Europe (footnote 4), para. 5. MacDonald Commission, p. 423; Morton Halperin (footnote 69). Sierra Leone (footnote 14), art. 22 (b); United Republic of Tanzania (footnote 61), art. 14 (1); Japan (footnote 61), art. 3(1); Botswana (footnote 21), sect. 22(4) a-b. Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, principle 2(b); Ottawa Principles, principle 7.4.1. Germany (footnote 2), sect. 8(5); Germany, Act on the Federal Intelligence Service, sect. 2(4); Council of Europe (footnote 4), art. V (ii); MacDonald Commission report, p. 513. Croatia (footnote 2), art. 33(2); Hungary (footnote 77), sect. 53(2); United States of America, Executive Order No. 12333, sect. 2.4. Federal Register vol. 40, No. 235, sect. 2; Germany (footnote 2), Sect. 8(5); Germany (footnote 99), Sect. 2(4); A/HRC/13/37, paras. 17 (f) and 49. GE.10-13410