CENTRUM FÖR RÄTTVISA v. SWEDEN JUDGMENT 39 accordance with a permit (see paragraph 36 above). The Court also has regard to the fact that the permits in question concern the collection of intelligence related to threats to national security and are not targeting individuals suspected of criminal conduct, in which case the need for specific provisions on the cancellation of permits would have been more prominent. Moreover, as noted by the Data Protection Authority (paragraph 60), the FRA continuously reviews whether the specific personal data it has intercepted is still needed for its signals intelligence activities. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that there are safeguards in place which adequately regulate the duration, renewal and cancellation of interception measures. (iv) Authorisation of secret surveillance measures (α) The parties’ submissions 131. The applicant submitted that, although signals intelligence could not be conducted without prior authorisation by the Foreign Intelligence Court, the court’s impartiality and independence from the Government could be questioned and its activities were covered by complete secrecy. Its hearings and decisions had never been made public. The same was true for information about the number of hearings, the number of permits granted or rejected, any reasoning of its decisions or the amount or type of search terms being used. As to the composition of the court, its members were elected for a limited period of time, except for the president. 132. The Government emphasised that all signals intelligence conducted required a permit from the Foreign Intelligence Court, including the FRA’s development activities. The Government also stressed that the court was independent from Parliament and public authorities. Although its activities were governed by secrecy, a privacy protection representative was present to safeguard the interests of individuals. (β) The Court’s assessment 133. As the Court has previously held, the authorisation of telephone tapping by a non-judicial authority may be compatible with the Convention (see, for example, Klass and Others, cited above, § 51; and Weber and Saravia, cited above, § 115), provided that that authority is sufficiently independent from the executive (Roman Zakharov, cited above, § 258). However, the rule of law implies, inter alia, that an interference by the executive authorities with an individual’s rights should be subject to an effective control which should normally be assured by the judiciary, at least in the last resort, judicial control normally offering the best guarantees of independence, impartiality and a proper procedure (Klass and Others, cited above, §§ 55 and 56). Prior judicial authorisation may serve to limit the authorities’ discretion in interpreting the scope of mandating and