A/HRC/14/46 activities more generally. While international terrorism has, since 2001, changed the landscape for the operation of intelligence agencies, the effects of that change go beyond the field of counter-terrorism. 7. The compilation highlights examples of good practice from numerous national laws and institutional models. It is, however, important to note that the citation of specific provisions from national laws or institutional models does not imply a general endorsement of these laws and institutions as good practice in protecting human rights in the context of counter-terrorism. Additionally, the Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize that the existence of legal and institutional frameworks which represent good practice is essential, but not sufficient for ensuring that intelligence services respect human rights in their counter-terrorism activities. 8. The 35 areas of good practice presented below are grouped into four different “baskets”, namely legal basis (1–5), oversight and accountability (6–10 and 14–18), substantive human rights compliance (11–13 and 19–20) and issues relating to specific functions of intelligence agencies (21–35). For reasons of presentation, the elements are grouped under a somewhat higher number of subheadings. II. Compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks for intelligence services and their oversight A. Mandate and legal basis Practice 1. Intelligence services play an important role in protecting national security and upholding the rule of law. Their main purpose is to collect, analyse and disseminate information that assists policymakers and other public entities in taking measures to protect national security. This includes the protection of the population and their human rights. 9. The functions of intelligence services differ from one country to another; however, the collection, analysis and dissemination of information relevant to the protection of national security is the core task performed by most intelligence services:2 indeed, many States limit the role of their intelligence services to this task. This represents good practice, because it prevents intelligence services from undertaking additional security-related activities already performed by other public bodies and which may represent particular threats to human rights if performed by intelligence services. In addition to defining the types of activities their intelligence services may perform, many States also limit the rationale for these activities to the protection of national security. While the understanding of national security varies among States, it is good practice for national security and its constituent values to be clearly defined in legislation adopted by parliament.3 This is important for ensuring that intelligence services confine their activities to helping to safeguard values that are enshrined in a public definition of national security. In many areas, safeguarding national security necessarily includes the protection of the population 2 3 GE.10-13410 Germany, Federal Act on Protection of the Constitution, sect. 5(1); Croatia, Act on the Security Intelligence System, art. 23 (2); Argentina, National Intelligence Law, art. 2 (1); Brazil, Act 9,883, arts. 1(2) and 2(1); Romania, Law on the Organisation and Operation of the Romanian Intelligence Service, art. 2; South Africa, National Strategic Intelligence Act, sect. 2 (1). Australia, Security Intelligence Organisation Act, sect. 4. 5