78 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights security services, and criminalise any speech that questions the role played by the security services during the crisis.182 In Egypt, Jordan and Syria, the Panel was given similar testimony: there was a consistent message about the lack of basic guarantees (such as prompt access to lawyers and courts and the right to inform the family) and impunity for any human rights violations. In several countries, the Panel was told that the intelligence services had a tendency to use their powers in non-terrorist matters (thereby undermining further the authority of law enforcement personnel and systems). In the Middle East especially, it was alleged that the intelligence services have become so powerful that they are, in effect, “a state within a state”.183 The counter-terrorism effort (new and old) appears to have privileged the role of intelligence services, and they are displacing and damaging the prerogative of civilian law enforcement and the judiciary. International law does not preclude powers of arrest, detention and interrogation being assigned to intelligence services, subject to the services complying fully with relevant human rights standards. Unfortunately, the Hearings provided ample evidence that such standards are not being met. This absence of compliance with human rights standards on the part of intelligence agencies, particularly when combined with a weakening of safeguards in terms of administrative measures and in the criminal justice system (Chapters Five and Six respectively), and a steady trend towards impunity, requires urgent attention. There is a valuable role to be performed by the intelligence agencies in gathering information of relevance to subsequent criminal investigations but the function of intelligence for investigatory purposes and law enforcement are two functions that need to be kept distinct. 2.3 Intelligence and “due process” Intelligence, by its very nature, poses particular problems for the principle of due process. In seeking to protect intelligence sources, some States have amended the regulations governing legal or administrative procedures to broaden the permissible grounds for non-disclosure of materials to suspects; and suspects are given limited opportunities to test the veracity of the information upon which their arrest, detention, or subsequent charges rest. There are conditions under which information may be legitimately withheld, and international law recognises that in certain circumstances tensions may genuinely arise in upholding principles of due process and at the same time protecting valid requirements of secrecy. However, international law also gives practical guidance as to how these tensions can be resolved.184 The 182 See Article 46 of the Decree Implementing the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, February 2006. 183 See the summary of the EJP Middle East Hearing. 184 UN Human Rights Committee, Views of 29 March 2002, Ahani v. Canada, Communication No. 1051/2002, para. 10 et seq; see also ECtHR, Judgment of 27 September 1990, Wassink v. Netherlands, Application No. 12535/86, Series A, No. 185-A. The European Court of Human Rights accepted that information can be