Foreword. Part I - Analytical report. Preamble. Introduction. Chapter 1: Definition and typology of special investigation techniques. Chapter 2: Special investigation techniques, law enforcement and prosecution. Chapter 3: Special investigation techniques: controlling their implementation. Chapter 4: Special investigation techniques and respect of human rights. Chapter 5: Special investigation techniques in the framework of international co-operation. Chapter 6: Intelligence services and the use of special investigation techniques. Conclusion. Part II – Situation in member and Observer states of the Council of Europe. Questionnaire: 1. Please indicate the SITs used in your country, the respective legal framework governing their use and their legal definition, if any; 2. When and under which circumstances (e.g. criminal investigation, preliminary stage, etc.) can SITs be used?; 3. Are there any specific features governing the use of SITs in relation to acts of terrorism? If so, please specify; 4. How does the legal framework governing the use of SITs guarantee respect for human rights and individual freedoms, the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? Is the authorisation to use SITs subject to time-limits? Which bodies and procedures are in place to supervise compliance with human rights standards and with the abovementioned principles in the use of SITs? Is supervision automatic/systematic?; 5. Which institutions are involved in the use of SITs and what is their role (e.g. law enforcement agencies, prosecutor's office, judicial authorities, etc.? Which institutions can order and/or authorise the use of SITs? How does co-operation between these institutions work in practice?; 6. Are there any specialised counter-terrorism institutions? What is their role in the use of SITs?; 7. Which measures have been adopted in order to facilitate international co-operation (e.g. joint investigation teams)? Can the SITs listed in reply to question 1 be used in cross-border settings?; 8. What use can be made of SIT in the context of mutual legal assistance?; 9. How can the use of 81Ts be improved? Please provide any comments/proposals concerning the implementation of the terms of reference of the PC-TI and in particular the use and regulation of SITs). Armenia. Austria. Azerbaijan. Belgium. Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bulgaria. Cyprus. Czech Republic. Denmark. Estonia. Finland. France. Germany. Hungary. Ireland. Italy. Latvia. Lithuania. Luxembourg. Moldova. Netherlands. Norway. Poland. Portugal. Romania. Russian Federation. Slovak Republic. Slovenia. Spain. Sweden. Switzerland. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Turkey. Ukraine. United Kingdom. Canada. United States of America.