Features of oversight bodies
When discussing transparency requirements, representatives of oversight bodies most often referred to
their reports or other publications. The reports include
annual reports, activity reports, investigation reports
and other specific (occasional, thematic) reports, in
addition to mandatory reports. In most cases, there
are two versions of the reports prepared by oversight
bodies: classified and declassified, or secret/redacted
and public versions. Similarly, reports may include
a confidential annex.
Representatives of oversight bodies described the
reports as substantive, detailed and lengthy. They
stated that discussions with the executive control and
intelligence services on what is to be declassified in
their reports are sometimes quite intense. The oversight
body representatives also indicated that, with nearly
every report or publication, they attempt to provide
‘more transparency’, ‘to push the limit’, to be able
to report as much as possible, and to explain and
substantiate why certain information is kept secret and
cannot be published. This is viewed as contributing to
the changing nature of the ‘secret culture’. Other actors
who engage in democratic control – mostly civil society
representatives – have observed such changes, too.
Question: “Do you have lots of discussions whilst the report
is being drawn up?”
Answer: “Yes. This was particularly the case with the first
report, in connection with which there was a real desire to
educate and explain matters properly.”
(Parliamentary committee)
“Have we actually got more in our report? The answer is
we do and I think that, following Mr. Snowden, there was
undoubtedly greater pressure to put more in and this new
legislation is a good example, where much more openness is
being encouraged and I think we will go on pressing...”
The interviewees considered any other information
to the general public or specific interest groups (e.g.
journalists) to add to transparency – for example,
information on the website, communications to
encourage individuals to appeal to the review body, the
ability to initiate ‘contact’ through the website, press
releases, provision of information to media ‘on request’,
and making decisions (judgements) available on the
website. Participation in conferences and other events
was mentioned by several respondents as ways to hold
discussions within a wider international framework, as
well as with civil society and the media.
Representatives of civil society organisations, academia,
lawyers and some national human rights institutions
tended to be critical of the content of oversight body
reports and their transparency in general, and indicated
they expected more. The main criticism was that there
is very limited information on actual activities and
little explanation of how the oversight or review is
carried out, while the main focus is on describing the
relevant legal basis.
“I think one third of the report is what they regularly say
every two years… ‘this is our legal basis…’, and I say ‘this is
not what I want to know’. I want to know a bit more about
their work.” (National human rights institution)
“It sets out what it does, on what legal basis... blah, blah,
blah. And there’s nothing else in there. Absolutely nothing.”
(Academia)
“But when it comes to the substantive issues, let’s say:
what have we learned from the [expert body]? How many
interceptions have there been? Not just how many times did
we meet, but what was the substance of that discussion.
Were there any novel decisions? Were there any novel
technologies that came to our attention? I want to know
about this.” (Civil society organisation)
(Expert body)
Many oversight body representatives said that it is
important for the general public to know that some
information is classified/secret/redacted, rather than
publishing a report and implying that it is complete.
They noted that the arguments for excluding
certain information from reports are important and
should be communicated.
“I think people need to realise how much of what we do
is secret and it is such a small amount, and it really is only
when there are real national security issues.” (Expert body)
Respondents also talked about opinions, recommendations and proposals, and studies on specific issues
that respond to specific requests or are initiated by the
oversight bodies themselves.
“What’s actually going on? We always had a feeling or hints
that what was revealed in the Snowden revelations was
in one form or another happening. But no one really knew
substantially. The reform just now, even many members of
parliamentary oversight committees I have talked to, say
they only learn about these things from the media - and not
from the official channels they are supposed to learn them
from...” (Media)
Respondents representing various institutions mentioned diverse ways to improve transparency and to
make themselves more open. Some spoke of possible improvements with regard to reporting (e.g. ‘The
reports could also go a little further without impacting
on confidentiality concerns’). Others noted that the
bodies should themselves be able to decide on what
to report. Some expected legal reforms to introduce
mandatory reporting by oversight bodies. Several representatives of expert oversight bodies mentioned
91