A/HRC/14/46 refuse illegal orders is closely linked to the availability of internal and external mechanisms through which intelligence service employees can voice their concerns about illegal orders (see practice 18 below). Practice 18. There are internal procedures in place for members of intelligence services to report wrongdoing. These are complemented by an independent body that has a mandate and access to the necessary information to fully investigate and take action to address wrongdoing when internal procedures have proved inadequate. Members of intelligence services who, acting in good faith, report wrongdoing are legally protected from any form of reprisal. These protections extend to disclosures made to the media or the public at large if they are made as a last resort and pertain to matters of significant public concern. 25. Employees of intelligence services are often first, and best, placed to identify wrongdoing within intelligence services, such as human rights violations, financial malpractice and other contraventions of statutory law. Accordingly, it is good practice for national law to outline specific procedures for members of intelligence services to disclose concerns about wrongdoing.81 These provisions aim to encourage members of intelligence services to report wrongdoing, while at the same time ensuring that disclosures of potentially sensitive information are made and investigated in a controlled manner. State practice demonstrates that there are several channels for such disclosures, including internal mechanisms to receive and investigate disclosures made by members of intelligence services,82 external institutions to receive and investigate disclosures, and members of intelligence services making disclosures directly to these institutions.83 In some systems, members of intelligence services may only approach the external institution if the internal body has failed to address adequately their concerns.84 In some States, members of intelligence services are permitted to make public disclosures as a last resort or when such disclosures concern particularly grave matters, such as a threat to life.85 Regardless of the precise nature of the channels for disclosure, it is good practice for national law to afford individuals who make disclosures authorized by law to protection against reprisals.86 81 82 83 84 85 86 16 New Zealand, Protected Disclosures Act, sect. 12; Bosnia and Herzegovina (footnote 6), art. 42; Canada, Security of Information Act, sect. 15. United Kingdom, Intelligence and Security Committee, annual report 2007–2008, paras. 66–67 (reference to the position of an “ethical counsellor” within the British Security Service); United States of America, Department of Justice, Whistleblower Protection for Federal Bureau of Investigation Employees, Federal Register, vol. 64, No. 210 (Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility). Germany (footnote 36), sect. 8(1); New Zealand (footnote 81), sect. 12. It should be noted that, in New Zealand, the Inspector-General is the only designated channel for protected disclosures. United States of America (footnote 35), title 50, sect. 403(q), 5; Canada (footnote 6), sect. 15 (5); Australia, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, sect.s 8 (1)a,(2)a,(3)a and 9(5). Canada (footnote 81), sect. 15; Germany, Criminal Code, sects. 93(2), 97a and 97b. The importance of public disclosures as a last resort was also highlighted in the report “Whistleblower protection: a comprehensive scheme for the Commonwealth public sector” House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affaires on the inquiry into whistleblowing protection within the Australian Government public sector, pp. 163–164; see also National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, “The 911 Commission Report”, chapter 3. Netherlands, Government Decree of 15 December 2009 Laying Down a Procedure for Reporting Suspected Abuses in the Police and Government Sectors, art. 2; United States of America, title 5, US Code, sect. 2303(a); Bosnia and Herzegovina (footnote 6), art. 42; Australia (footnote footnote 84), sect. 33; Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Draft Resolution on the protection of whistleblowers, doc. 12006, paras. 6.2.2 and 6.2.5. GE.10-13410