Chapter 3 - Report of the Research and Policy Development Group and the applicable human rights instruments. The Commission hopes to widen its involvement to criminal cases where human rights principles are involved, but only at the mitigation and sentencing stage. 5. REVIEW OF LAWS (a) Repeal of the ISA and Enactment of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 The Commission commends the Government for repealing the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) and welcomes, in its place, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (the SOSMA) which came into operation on 31 July.5 Major amendments were also made to the Penal Code6 and Criminal Procedure Code7 to make their provisions consistent with the SOSMA. The Commission notes that some provisions of the SOSMA are in line with the Commission’s recommendations in its report, Review of the Internal Security Act 1960, published in 2003. In it, the Commission had recommended that the ISA be repealed and that a new comprehensive law be enacted to deal with threats against national security (including terrorism) but with provisions that are in line with human rights principles. Accordingly, the Commission welcomes provisions of the SOSMA which only allow the police to detain a suspect for a maximum of 28 days for the purpose of investigation, after which the individual must either be released or charged with one or any of the specified security offences. The Commission also welcomes the clause for review of this provision every five years and for its cessation unless otherwise extended. However, the Commission has the following concerns which it hopes will be addressed: (i) The power of arrest and detention under Section 4 of the Act does not provide for judicial oversight when the detention period is extended up to 28 days. (ii) Although Section 5 provides for notification of the next-of-kin when a person is arrested and detained, the police have the power to deny him/her immediate access to legal representation for a period of up to 48 hours. (iii) The provision that grants the authorities the power to intercept communications under Section 6 infringes on personal liberty and the right to privacy. The Commission recognises the necessity to provide the Public Prosecutor and police with law enforcement tools to respond to evolving communications technology, and acknowledges that interception and retention of data for national security purposes may in some cases be justified. However, it maintains that allowing interception and retention of communication without sufficient 5 6 7 P.U(B) 256/2012 Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 [Act A1430] Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012 [Act 1431] 81