Doc. 11302 Report 199. We were told that senior Polish military intelligence officials who visited Stare Kiejkuty were ordered to “limit rotation and operational demands on Polish officers to make the HVD programme work.” Beyond this fleeting insight, however, neither Polish nor American sources who discussed the HVD programme with us would agree to speak about the exact “operational details” of secret detentions at Stare Kiejkuty, nor would they confirm how long it was operated for, which other facilities were used as part of the same programme in Poland, nor how and when exactly the detainees left the country. 200. The legacy of the HVD programme in Poland is palpable in the self-perceptions of those Polish officials who participated in its operations. The members of military intelligence with whom we spoke seemed, on one level, to be in denial as to whether secret detentions in violation of Poland’s human rights obligations had taken place in their country; yet, on another level, they showed signs of resentment mainly that their American allies had betrayed their bond of trust by leaking details of the programme. These contradictory sentiments, often difficult to gauge accurately, are aptly captured by the following statement: “The [Stare Kiejkuty] base was America’s choice; our job was their security. If any American is here, it is America’s responsibility, but he also becomes Poland’s responsibility too. So it is my responsibility …” 5. Secret detention operations in Romania 5.1. Partnering with military intelligence in Romania 201. In Romania, after the December 1989 Revolution and the dismantling of the repressive Securitate in 1990, the reforms of the intelligence services were focused, understandably, on preventing the politicisation and abuse of internal state security structures. Similarly, much of the subsequent discussion around democratic oversight in the country has looked at ways of controlling “institutional actors and leading political figures with authority over the security and intelligence domain who disregard the legal stipulations regarding political neutrality”.176 202. As I have analysed Romania’s complex array of different agencies and sub-structures that collect intelligence for the state,177I have realised that preserving political neutrality is merely one of a variety of competing considerations that affect the objectivity and effectiveness of their accountability structures.178In the context of my inquiry, it seems to me that while Romania has made at least superficial efforts to rid its civilian intelligence services of the scourges of their Securitate past, its oversight mechanisms do not go far enough to prevent the exercise of what could be called “unitary executive authority” – on the part of the president – over military intelligence services and the wider defence community. 203. This analysis conforms to the testimony of our Romanian sources, who said that the Americans chose to work with the military intelligence services because the military “cover” afforded the CIA flexible deployment options and guarantees of secrecy under the NATO framework. As the following comparison shows, there are substantial disparities between the respective monitoring mechanisms in the civilian and military spheres. 204. First, in the civilian sphere, Romania’s two main agencies of the post-Communist era, the Romanian [Domestic] Intelligence Service (Serviciul roman de informatii, or SRI) and the Foreign Intelligence Service (Serviciul de informatii externe, or SIE) were created under specific laws179and a multi-layered oversight 176. See Larry Watts, Office of the National Security Adviser of the Romanian President, “Control and Oversight of Security Intelligence in Romania”, Working Paper No. 111, published by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), Geneva, February 2003, copy on file with the rapporteur (hereinafter “Watts, Oversight of Security Intelligence in Romania”), at p. 27. The author recommends that “real sanctions should be introduced and enforced” in such instances where rule of law is subverted by political considerations. 177. There are at least six different secret services in Romania, several of them housed under individual government ministries. The agencies that I have not discussed specifically in this section include the General Directorate of Intelligence and Internal Protection (Directia Generala de Informatii si de Protectie Interna, or DGIPI) in the Ministry of the Interior, and the Independent Protection and Anti-Corruption Agency (Serviciul Independent de Protectie si Anticoruptie, or SIPA) in the Ministry of Justice. 178. For a much more developed discussion of the relevant considerations, see: European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), “Report on the Democratic Oversight of the Security Services”, Study No. 388/2006, CDL-DEM(2007)001, 24 May 2007. In its concluding remarks, the Commission highlights “recurring issues in the design of oversight procedures”, as follows: “First is the need to establish mechanisms to prevent political abuse while providing for effective governance of the agencies. Overall, the objective is that security and intelligence agencies should be insulated from political abuse without being isolated from executive governance”; and “the challenge for oversight and accountability is to adapt or devise processes that simultaneously command democratic respect while protecting national security”; at pp. 49-50, paragraphs 215-226 (soon to be issued as CDL-AD(2007)016 – available on http://venice.coe.int, see especially footnote 6). 43