Although not provided by Swiss law, the police authorised an undercover agent to interact with him. The applicant offered to buy drugs for the agent and was subsequently convicted. The agent was not called as a witness. The decision was unanimously taken that Article 8 was not violated. Internal guidelines do not go far enough, and may still be in violation of the Convention.
Statutory controls are available to the public and are devised by the process of open debate.
In the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, clause 26 states that covert human intelligence sources need authorisation. In a parallel area the Court of Human Rights has examined the laws relating to telephone tapping in this country, in the context of alleged violations of Article 8, the right to respect for an individual's private life. Essentially the Convention states that the right to privacy may be interfered with for various purposes by the state, but any interference must be proportionate to a legitimate aim, and must be in accordance with law, i.e. legally regulated, preferably by statute. This case led to the Interception of Communications Act 1984 which regulated the use of telephone tapping. In relation to informers the need is as great, in view of the great ethical dilemmas posed.