a. b. c. d. Set out the categories of persons whose telephones may be tapped; Spell out the nature of the offences justifying the use of tapping; Indicate the duration of the measure; Explain the procedure for drawing up the summary reports containing intercepted conversations; e. Identify the precautions to be taken in order to communicate the recordings intact and in their entirety for possible inspection by the judge and the defence; and f. Clarify the circumstances in which they are to be erased or destroyed (in particular following discharge or acquittal of the accused).823 26. Digital communications surveillance programmes must meet the requirements of international human rights law even if it is argued they are necessary on the grounds of national security or for intelligence purposes.824 Therefore if it can be shown that there is a legitimate aim and safeguards are in place, intrusive surveillance may be permitted.825 ‘Mass or bulk surveillance programmes’ are likely to be considered arbitrary.826 27. Secret surveillance powers is seen to increase the risk of arbitrary abuse of discretion and therefore such powers should be set out clearly in an accessible law that has foreseeable effects.827 Secret surveillance, such as the use of ‘watch-lists’, without an effective independent oversight, is seen as a violation of the right to privacy.828 28. Measures which are undertaken to counteract terrorism have the potential to violate the right to privacy.829 The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism has urged States to ensure that their surveillance policies comply with principles of proportionality and necessity and international human rights law.830 29. Vague notions of ‘national security’ will raise concerns if they are used to justify interference with privacy rights.831 30. States may use surveillance measures if they: 823 European Court, Huvig and Kruslin v France, 24 April 1990. Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Right to Privacy in the digital age, A/HRC/27/37, 30 June 2014, para 23 and 24. 825 Ibid, para 25. European Court, Rotaru v Romania, 4 May 2000. 826 Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Right to Privacy in the digital age, A/HRC/27/37, 30 June 2014, para 25. 827 CCPR/C/USA/CO/4, para 22. See also European Court, Teixera da Castro v Portugal, 9 June 1998. 828 Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, A/HRC/13/37, para 26. Also, Human Rights Committee, Communication 1472/2006, 22 October 2008. European Court, Klass v Germany, 6 September 1978. 829 Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, A/HRC/13/37. 830 Ibid. 831 A/HRC/23/40, para 58. See also in context of Council of Europe, Recommendation REC (2005)10 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on ‘Special Investigation Techniques’ in Relation to Serious Crimes Including Acts of Terrorism, (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2005 at the 924th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies). 824 134