Part 1 47 There may be a tendency on the part of intelligence operatives to postpone the start of an investigation because they would prefer to obtain more information in order to build up their database and to find out more about the suspects’ activities and links with other terrorism suspects. However, as has already been pointed out, intelligence is not an end in itself. It is intended to lead to an investigation or pro-active measures. This tension may also manifest itself in withholding details concerning the source or substance of intelligence from the officer in charge of the investigation, or from the prosecutor by intelligence operatives. This is more likely to occur in those systems where there is a clear distinction between the intelligence-gathering and the investigative functions, and where there are separate command structures. Security reasons will often be cited – the need to protect the identity of the source or the method in which the information was obtained – and these may, indeed, be legitimate. Even if such situation can be the cause of frustration to the investigation team, who have equally legitimate reasons for needing to have a complete picture of the case, it may, occasionally, be necessary. Such a situation can have important human rights implications. For example, the investigation team and the prosecutor may not be absolutely assured that part of the information supporting the investigation was not obtained by torture. It also impacts the preparation of the case for trial and the admissibility of evidence. It is always better that this type of situation is not dealt with on an ad hoc basis, but that formal arrangements are put into place in advance for resolving any dilemmas arising out of a conflict of interest and priorities, taking into account the demands of the legal system in place within the jurisdiction. These may range from a formal system of mediation between the intelligence-gathering and investigative functions to unilateral in camera applications to the trial judge by lawyers acting on behalf of the intelligence-gathering function. The need for security and the question of anonymity for witnesses, informants and undercover agents, as well as the disclosure of operational modus operandi generally and in legal proceedings, must always be balanced with the right of a suspect to have a fair trial. Where adhering to the need for secrecy would prevent a fair trial, the right to a fair trial, as defined under international human rights standards, should always prevail.55 55 HRC, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, 23 August 2007, <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fGC%2f32&Lang=en>.