A/HRC/10/3 page 23 revelations by these actors. In order for the press to perform their vital function as an external, unofficial control mechanism, robust freedom of information laws and laws protecting journalists’ confidential sources77 are absolutely necessary. States must limit prosecutions for breaching secrecy provisions to their officials,78 introduce a mandatory public interest test and oblige the courts to consider the public interest value when it comes to the publication of official State secrets. 63. In all cases judges must be the ultimate arbitrators in assessing the merits of the State secrecy claim when serious human rights violations are at stake. Their rulings may allow the disclosure of the disputed information to the public or to a terrorist suspect and his lawyer in legal proceedings. In order to test secrecy claims in the latter case, a judicial body should have access to the actual evidence a Government is seeking to protect, rather than mere summaries or declarations provided by the Government. Where there are reasons for excluding elements that can justifiably be considered as State secrets, courts should consider counter-balancing measures for not making available such information in a public hearing, for instance by limiting access to the information to the (if necessary, security cleared) lawyer of the suspect. Only when strictly necessary could a judge decide to make a distinction between disclosing the provenance of the evidence (the source and the method used) and the content of the information, which should always be open to challenge. III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions 64. The increased powers of intelligence services to conduct measures that seriously interfere with individuals’ rights, as well as the increasing relevance of intelligence for legal and administrative actions, make it essential that adequate accountability mechanisms are put in place to prevent human rights abuses. Under international human rights law, States are under a positive obligation to conduct independent investigations into alleged violations of the right to life, freedom from torture or other inhuman treatment, enforced disappearances or arbitrary detention,79 to bring to justice those responsible for such acts, and to provide reparations where 77 In Belgium, for instance, the Law on the protection of journalistic sources of 7 April 2005 (Moniteur Belge, 27 April 2005) permits journalists and media employees explicitly “to keep their sources secret” (art. 3). 78 See in this context the “Cicero” ruling of the German Constitutional Court in 2007, which stated that journalists cannot be legitimately accused of betrayal of State secrets for publishing classified information obtained from informers. See BVerfG, 1 BvR 538/06 of 27.2.2007, Absatz-Nr. (1-82), available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20070227_1bvr053806. html. 79 Aydin v. Turkey (1997) 25 ECHR 251; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, arts. 5, 6, 12 and 13; Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004) on the Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, paras. 15 and 18.