A/HRC/14/46 and its human rights;4 indeed, a number of States explicitly include the protection of human rights as one of the core functions of their intelligence services.5 Practice 2. The mandates of intelligence services are narrowly and precisely defined in a publicly available law. Mandates are strictly limited to protecting legitimate national security interests as outlined in publicly available legislation or national security policies, and identify the threats to national security that intelligence services are tasked to address. If terrorism is included among these threats, it is defined in narrow and precise terms. 10. The mandates of intelligence services are one of the primary instruments for ensuring that their activities (including in the context of counter-terrorism) serve the interests of the country and its population, and do not present a threat to the constitutional order and/or human rights. In the majority of States, intelligence services’ mandates are clearly delineated in a publicly available law, promulgated by parliament.6 It is good practice for mandates to be narrowly and precisely formulated, and to enumerate all of the threats to national security that intelligence services are responsible for addressing.7 Clear and precise mandates facilitate accountability processes, enabling oversight and review bodies to hold intelligence services to account for their performance of specific functions. Finally, a clear definition of threats is particularly relevant in the context of counterterrorism; many States have adopted legislation that provides precise definitions of terrorism, as well as of terrorist groups and activities.8 Practice 3. The powers and competences of intelligence services are clearly and exhaustively defined in national law. They are required to use these powers exclusively for the purposes for which they were given. In particular, any powers given to intelligence services for the purposes of counter-terrorism must be used exclusively for these purposes. 11. It is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law that all powers and competences of intelligence services are outlined in law.9 An exhaustive enumeration of the powers and competences of intelligence services promotes transparency and enables people to foresee 4 5 6 7 8 9 6 General Assembly resolutions 54/164 and 60/288; Council of the European Union, European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy, doc. no 14469/4/05; para. 1; Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism, AG/RES. 1840 (XXXII-O/02), preamble; Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Guidelines on human rights in the fight against terrorism, art. I. Croatia (footnote 2), art. 1.1; Switzerland, Loi fédérale instituant des mesures visant au maintien de la sûreté intérieure, art. 1; Brazil (footnote 2), art. 1(1). Norway, Act relating to the Norwegian Intelligence Service, sect. 8; Bosnia and Herzegovina, Law on the Intelligence and Security Agency, arts. 5–6; Brazil (footnote 2), art. 4; Canada, Security Intelligence Service Act, sects. 12–16; Australia (footnote 3), sect. 17. This practice was also recommended in Morocco, Instance equité et réconciliation, rapport final, Vol. I, Vérité, equité et réconciliation, 2005, chapitre IV, 8-3 (hereafter Morocco – ER Report); European Commission for Democracy Through Law, Internal Security Services in Europe, CDL-INF(1998)006, I, B (b) and (c) (hereafter Venice Commission (1998)). Canada (footnote 6), sect. 2; Malaysia, report of the Royal Commission to enhance the operation and management of the Royal Malaysia Police of 2005, (hereafter Malaysia – Royal Police Commission), 2.11.3 (p. 316); Croatia (footnote 2), art. 23(1); Australia (footnote 3), sect. 4; Germany (footnote 2), sects. 3(1) and 4; United States of America, Executive Order 12333, art. 1.4 (b). Romania, Law on Preventing and Countering Terrorism, art. 4; Norway, Criminal Code, sect. 147a; New Zealand, Intelligence and Security Service Act, sect. 2. Croatia (footnote 2), Arts. 25–37; Lithuania, Law on State Security Department, art. 3; Germany (footnote 2), sect. 8. See also: South African Ministerial Review Commission, p. 157; Canada, MacDonald Commission, p. 410; Morocco - IER report, 8-3; Malaysia, Royal Police Commission, 2.11.3 (p. 316). GE.10-13410