Dimitrina Petrova (Human Rights Project, Bulgaria)

The question in Bulgaria in the last few years has been: "When human rights concerns and national security concerns come into conflict, how are they resolved? In Bulgaria, exposing human rights abuses has been regarded as a threat to national security. Are human rights groups subversive? They are not subversive in a democratic society, but they are truly subversive in a totalitarian society.

When I taught in the United States, I found a consensus, even among my young American college students, that there is no inherent conflict between a reasonable definition of national security and human rights. They believed that the well being of a nation is better served by protecting human rights. In Bulgaria, the national consensus is the opposite -- that human rights activists bear the whole responsibility. In their work they should not create national security risks. When they expose human rights abuses, they should always be aware of whether what they say increases the tension in society or brings about peace. In my opinion, the opposite is more important: that the security services should always respect human rights. Bulgaria is very prepared to excuse limitations of human rights on the basis of national security. This is evident in the Constitution and the laws establishing the security services.

In Bulgaria, the problem with accountability of the security services is not only in the law itself. The problem is tradition, the tradition of secrecy, lack of accountability and disregard for human rights. It is like a fraction: above the line of the fraction may be good laws; but below the line is the tradition of the Cold War, of governmental secrecy and the attitude that citizens are not competent to discuss the national security agenda. The stronger this tradition, the smaller the value of the fraction, and the smaller the value of the democratic achievement.

Laws adopted in Bulgaria after 1991 describe the function of the national security services, but there is no clear definition of national security, even though national security is explicitly recognized as a ground on which freedom of information and freedom of religion can be limited. The closest the law comes to defining the functions of the national security services is that they are to observe, limit and counteract intelligence activities by foreign nations and activities breaking the unity of the nation, its territorial integrity or its sovereignty.

There are several aspects to this problem. One is the tradition of secrecy. Another is that the laws establishing the national security services do not definitively limit their authority. For example, Article 3 of the Law for the National Security Service (NSS) in force since June 1994 provides that the NSS "collects, processes, preserves and submits to state agencies information related to the protection of national security and national interests in the cases and under the procedure provided by a law;" however, no such law providing the procedure exists so far. So it is impossible to make a comprehensive list of what is permitted. Another part of this problem is that key points are left to executive order or internal regulations, which are not available to the public. Finally, the Law on Special Intelligence Means does not say a word about the rights of citizens to obtain information about the work of the security services or to have access to their files.

Tomas Svoboda (M.P., Czech Republic)

There are three security services in the Czech Republic: a civilian internal intelligence agency, a civilian foreign intelligence agency, and a military intelligence service. The services only perform tasks in accordance with the law. For example, the security services need permission from the highest court to wiretap and they must prove this is the only means to obtain the information and that the person to be wiretapped is a threat to the security of the Czech Republic.

The security services are subject to parliamentary control. Parliament controls all budgeting and financing of the services and gives tasks to the intelligence services. There is a seven member parliamentary oversight com-mission, which includes three members from the opposition, with jurisdiction over the civilian security services. This coming fall there will be a debate about establishing parliamentary control over all of the intelligence services.

Less than five percent of the personnel of the former communist service currently serve in the civilian internal intelligence agency. This percentage is somewhat higher in the foreign and military intelligence services.

The security services are forbidden by law from interfering in the private lives of citizens. They do not play a role in political life. There are cases where individuals have tried to use information gained within the service for their own purposes. For example, a person tried to sell information he obtained from the service but he was tried and punished. In January 1995, the chairman of one coalition party (ODA) charged that the intelligence service had gathered information on his and another party. The parliamentary commission investigated these allegations, and could not substantiate them.

Alexandr Arseni (former M.P., Moldova)

The Republic of Moldova declared independence on August 27, 1994 and faces complex problems because it only recently emerged from the Soviet empire. The security service in Moldova is still a branch of the Moscow KGB. Only five percent of the security services personnel are newly employed; the vast majority are holdovers from the communist service. While there is a law governing the police agencies, the police are influenced by the security services. Another problem is the lack of an independent judiciary.

Currently a draft law on national security and the security services is awaiting legislative action. Our consideration of this law will be facilitated by this conference, since the materials you assembled will aid us in drafting amendments to protect human rights.

Human rights are violated all over the country. My official telephone and my private telephone are tapped. Victor Barsan's book on the Ilascu case presents a good example of how human rights activists can be put on trial, convicted and imprisoned by the courts. Most citizens avoid the security services -- they would not think of approaching them to request their files.

Hence we have a number of problems related to the development of civil society. We hope that with your cooperation we can build the rule of law.

Igor Petrukhin (Academy of Sciences, Russia)

Ten or 15 years ago, this kind of conference could not have taken place. Things have changed and we can sit together. Unfortunately, the Russian security services, after being invited to this conference, did not sent a representative. This is a manifestation of the fact that the security services in Russia have not come to appreciate the importance of public discussion and criticism of their operations.

A current example of the security services' political involvement is their active participation in the Chechen conflict. They trespass on the functions of the police and also penetrate the political life of Russia through their role in providing security for all social and political events.

The security services operate under two definitions of their role. The broad one, embodied in the law of 1992, says that the security services shall provide security and prevent external and internal danger. The narrow one says they collect intelligence and counterintelligence. Between these two understandings, the services have wide latitude.

In 1991, President Yeltsin attempted to integrate the internal and external security services but the constitutional tribunal declared that effort unconstitutional based on the principle of separation of power and the system of checks and balances. This sort of argument could be useful in other countries. In 1992, Yeltsin signed a law on the federal national security services that provided for the development of a huge state institution, the Ministry of Security, vested with the responsibility of internal and external intelligence, management of the border guards, and the protection of high level officials. After the October 1993 coup, President Yeltsin decided to split up the Ministry of Security into internal intelligence, border guards, a federal agency for government communication, and services to protect high ranking officials and the president. At the end of 1993, the federal counterintelligence service was established to deal exclusively with counter-intelligence. This was accomplished by executive order which made no reference to human rights. This decree was in effect for about one year, and then President Yeltsin decided to set up a strong security service as such, responsible for intelligence, counterintelligence and organized crime. Under the February 1995 law, this organ was given new functions relating not only to counter-intelligence but also organized crime. This service reports directly to the President and Prime Minister and nobody else.

Several words about human rights: The security services violate human rights on an extensive scale. Unfortunately, forces protecting human rights have not had any support from the government or parliament. Parliament has done a very unfortunate thing in dismissing the ombudsman, Kovalyov. The basic threat to human rights is posed by the security services. Now we have five such services, including the tax police, the central office for the security of officials, and the foreign intelligence service.

Under the constitution, a court order is needed for wiretapping and mail openings, but this norm is not followed. Human rights are also violated by the recently established internal revenue police who use information from informers to find people hiding assets. The informer gets ten percent of the amount recovered by the state.

A draft law has been submitted which would permit the operational services to intervene in the private life of citizens; enter their homes, wiretap, and open letters without court consent. This would mean a return to the situation as it existed before the Constitution was adopted.

In Russia today, elements of a police state are being introduced, actively and energetically. There is no indication that we are approaching the system of the rule of law.

Plator Bilibashi (Ministry of Interior, Albania)

Albania, as a country breaking away from the communist isolation, has been required to deeply reorganize and restructure all the organs dealing with state security. In order to understand the work done in this regard, it is necessary to have a general understanding of the role of the security services during the communist regime.

First, one must stress the fact of the domination of communist politics and ideology over these services. Secondly, Albania had followed a very rigid line in the implementation of economic and state policy. The organs of security services were not subject to the law, but they were obedient tools in the hands of the party and its leaders. There existed open violations of human rights, aiming to create a psychological terror in the people. A great number of people were persecuted, imprisoned and killed by the communist regime. The police of that time were under the control of the Sigurimi (the security services of that time).

After the overthrow of communism, a high priority was the thorough reorganization of the security organs in accordance with Western European models.

The first step was to separate the police from the security services, based on legal norms. The National Intelligence Service was founded and its functions were precisely defined in law no. 7495 of 2 July 1991, entitled "On the Organization of the National Intelligence Service".

That law provided that the National Intelligence Service (SHIKU) is a central institution functioning in accordance with Albanian laws, respecting the human rights of the Republic of Albania and the universal declaration of human rights of the United Nations. The SHIKU is not affiliated with any party, and is depoliticized. All its operations must be based upon the laws. The General or Deputy Prosecutor has control of the legal work in cases. The General Prosecutor must approve in advance any activity that would infringe upon the citizen's rights. SHIKU may act towards deputies (MPs) or heads of political parties only in cases approved by the People's Assembly, the President or Prime Minister.

In the Republic of Albania, there are two other services, the Army Intelligence Service and the Public Order Intelligence Service, both established by law no. 7530, dated 17 December 1991. Cooperation between the three services is governed by special normative acts.

The staff of the above-mentioned services is composed of people not involved with the ex-communist regime, mainly intellectuals from different fields of life -- teachers, engineers, economists and lawyers -- who are in these jobs to give their modest contribution to the establishment of democracy in Albania.

Sergei Grigoriants (Glasnost Foundation, Russia)

In recent years, the Glasnost Foundation has held five conferences on the KGB and six roundtables on legislation. Both this and other kinds of human rights activity constantly causes sharp resistance from the security services. Recently, there have been a number of assassinations of democracy-oriented activists. These assassinations were organized by the security services. I submit to you a paper entitled "Political Assassinations."

It is also important to note that in the latest order of the Russian President concerning the federal security service, its foremost function is described not as protection of the national security, but informing the President (and other persons at his order) about threats to national security. So we might call it a personal Presidential service. It has nothing in common with the interests of the state. It openly serves political purposes.

Tens of thousands of people were killed in Chechnya on the basis of decisions made at the highest level, with the active participation of the security services. This is a crime against humanity and requires international attention. The security services in Russia are criminal organizations to which the principles developed in the Nuremberg trials apply.

Miroslav Kusy (Milan Simecka Foundation, Slovakia)

In Slovakia, there is a concentration of power of the security services in the hands of the Prime Minister personally. A new law allows the prime minister to nominate both the director of the security services and the chairman of the oversight commission in the parliament. They are therefore both of his own party. The security services do use their power to interfere with the political life. For example, in Slovakia, in order to form a party you need to have 10,000 signatures. The security service examines the list of signatures to verify the names. As to personnel, the vice director of the security services was formerly a senior officer in the communist services and many lower level personnel are from the former regime.

Sanford Ungar (American University, United States)

A key question that emerges from this discussion is whether the language of any law defining the role of the security services is so vague as to allow them to do anything they please. Phrases like "security of the state" or "unity of the nation" are very vague. What do they mean? How is anyone to know whether, through some political or economic activity, they will be regarded as threatening the security of the state?

Kate Martin

In the United States, supporters of civil liberties have worked very hard to ensure that insofar as citizens are concerned, the FBI is limited to only investigating criminal activity. We have tried to do away with any general concept of domestic security or internal security, which would extend beyond violent conduct.

Valeriu Matei (M.P., Moldova)

Without a clear definition of the role of the security services, there can be no democratic society.

Marek Nowicki

What kinds of citizens organizations should be subject to surveillance or investigations? For example, fascist movements. When can the security services start watching such groups? Only when they set a bomb? If these services have informants inside these groups, we would feel safer.

Harvey Grossman (American Civil Liberties Union, United States)

The answer to Marek Nowicki's question about when the government should be allowed to gather information on an organization is that the government needs to focus on criminal conduct and not on associations or beliefs. The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which groups to investigate based on political beliefs, even hateful ones. Otherwise, the government can characterize lawful human rights groups as a threat to the national security.

Dimitrina Petrova

The question remains, at what stage of preparation of a crime may the security services start to get involved? In Bulgaria, the law provides that the counterintelligence service can collect information on persons who are "connected with": one, the activities of foreign intelligence services; two, violations or threats to the "unity of the nation;" three, activities aimed at violent change of the constitutionally-established order. At what point are activities "aimed at" violent change? Under the communist concept of "prevention of crime," the political police supervised people based on their dissenting views. If the security services are limited to investigation of crimes, does that include prevention of crime, and if so, how far does "prevention" extend?

Jerzy Zimowski (Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs, Poland)

I came to parliament as a dissident, a person who had troubles with the security service, and six months later I assisted in drafting the law for Poland's security service.

The questions you are debating today we had to answer in preparing that law. Our fundamental premise was that human rights can be observed only in a stable, strong state of law. The state itself is a value here and therefore the security service is also a value. We concluded that the security of the state hinges on the stability of democratic institutions and the constitutional order. The threats that we concluded should remain within the compass of the security services are the following: threats to the self-governing of the nation, its territorial integrity, and its defense resources; international threats including terrorism, arms trafficking and drug trafficking; the protection of state secrets; and the protection of the vital economic interests. That is how we defined national security and the responsibility of the security services.

There is a saying that "there can be no democracy for the foes of democracy." Internally, you will find people who say, "We don't agree to democracy. We want to take over the state." The security services can respond in different manners. They can respond immediately to such proclamations. Some other services respond only when such proclamations are translated into action.

Tomas Svoboda

Our law specifies that the intelligence service has the task of collecting information about: organized crime; terrorism; activities that threaten the economic interests of the Czech Republic; other foreign intelligence services active in the Czech Republic; threats to state secrets; and activities directed against the basic democracy or sovereignty of the Czech Republic.

Elizabeth Rindskopf (Central Intelligence Agency, United States)

Defining national security is not easy. The definition changes over time as the world changes. But in answering the question in the United States, we have begun by enacting statutes that govern the intelligence agencies. These laws are interpreted against the backdrop of the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. Another thing we do to control security services is to distinguish between foreign intelligence gathered abroad and domestic information, which we call evidence, which is used in criminal prosecutions. By statute, the CIA is precluded from engaging in any law enforcement activities. The FBI, in the context of its counterintelligence role, operates domes-tically and must focus on the criminal laws.

Ferenc Koszeg (M.P., Hungary)

In the United States, the FBI is a kind of police. Their job is criminal investigation. In Europe, the security services concentrate on criminal activities that threaten state security, including espionage, terrorism and anti-constitutional activity. Recently, there has been an attempt in the region to widen the scope of activities of the security services to include classic criminal activities, such as organized crime or drug trafficking. This would put the security services in competition with the police and endanger civil liberties.

One of the problems with oversight by NGOs or the courts is that citizens cannot know about the activities of the security services, unlike the activities of the police. This makes it very difficult for civil organizations to control the illegal activities of the security services.