A/HRC/14/46 processes and activities of intelligence services are sometimes withheld from the public in order to protect their working methods. These types of regulations do not serve as the basis for activities that infringe human rights. It is good practice for any subordinate regulation to be based on and comply with applicable public legislation.16 B. Oversight institutions Practice 6. Intelligence services are overseen by a combination of internal, executive, parliamentary, judicial and specialized oversight institutions whose mandates and powers are based on publicly available law. An effective system of intelligence oversight includes at least one civilian institution that is independent of both the intelligence services and the executive. The combined remit of oversight institutions covers all aspects of the work of intelligence services, including their compliance with the law; the effectiveness and efficiency of their activities; their finances; and their administrative practices. 13. In common with intelligence services, the institutions that oversee their activities are based on law and, in some cases, founded on the Constitution.17 There is no single model for the oversight intelligence services; however, the following components are commonly included in comprehensive systems of oversight:18 internal management and control mechanisms within intelligence services;19 executive oversight;20 oversight by parliamentary bodies;21 as well as specialized and/or judicial oversight bodies.22 It is good 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 8 Bosnia and Herzegovina (footnote 6), art. 1; Brazil (footnote 2), art. 1(1); Croatia (footnote 2), art. 2(2); Ecuador, State and Public Safety Act, art. 3; Lithuania (footnote 9), art. 5; Romania, Law on the National Security of Romania, arts. 5, 16; Mexico (reply). Argentina (footnote 2), art. 24; Venice Commission (1998), I, B (b) and (c); Malaysia, Royal Police Commission 2.11.3 (p. 316); Kenya, National Security Intelligence Act, art. 31; South Africa, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa, report, vol. 5, chap. 8, p. 328. Germany, Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, art. 45d; South Africa, Constitution, arts. 209–210. See S/2008/39, para. 6. While not included in the present compilation, it should be underlined that civil society organizations also play an important role in the public oversight of intelligence services; see reply of Madagascar. For an elaboration on internal management and control mechanisms, see South African Ministerial Review Committee, p. 204; European Commission for Democracy through Law, report on the democratic oversight of the security services, CDL-AD(2007), point 131 (hereafter Venice Commission (2007)); OECD DAC handbook on security system reform: supporting security and justice; United Kingdom, Intelligence Security Committee, annual report 2001–2002, p. 46. See also The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (reply). On executive control of intelligence services, see Croatia (footnote 2), art. 15; United Kingdom, Security Services Act, sects. 2(1), 4(1); Argentina (footnote 2), art. 14; Netherlands, Intelligence and Security Services Act, art. 20(2); Sierra Leone (footnote 14), art. 24; Bulgaria (footnote 15), art. 131; Azerbaijan, Law on Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence Activities, art. 22.2. For legislation on parliamentary oversight of intelligence services, see Albania, Law on National Intelligence Service, art. 7; Brazil (footnote 2), art. 6; Romania (footnote 2), art. 1; Ecuador (footnote 14), art. 24; Botswana, Intelligence and Security Act, sect. 38; Croatia (footnote2), art. 104; Switzerland (footnote 5), art. 25, Loi sur l’Assemblée fédérale, art. 53(2); Germany (footnote 17), art. 45d; Bulgaria (footnote 15), art. 132; The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (reply). See also Morocco, IER Report, p. 11. In Latvia, the National Security Committee of the parliament (Saeima) is responsible for parliamentary oversight of the intelligence service (reply); Georgia, Law on Intelligence Activity, art. 16. For specialized intelligence oversight bodies, see Norway, Act on Monitoring of Intelligence, Surveillance and Security Services, art. 1; Canada (footnote 6), sects. 34–40; Netherlands (footnote GE.10-13410