AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 27 124. The individual must be able to challenge the executive's assertion that national security is at stake. While the executive's assessment of what poses a threat to national security will naturally be of significant weight, the independent authority must be able to react in cases where invoking that concept has no reasonable basis in the facts or reveals an interpretation of “national security” that is unlawful or contrary to common sense and arbitrary. Failing such safeguards, the police or other State authorities would be able to encroach arbitrarily on rights protected by the Convention. 125. In the present case the initial proposal to deport Mr Al-Nashif was made by the police and a prosecutor in Smolyan (see paragraph 21 above). It is true that the prosecution authorities in Bulgaria are separate and structurally independent from the executive. However, the Government have not submitted information of any independent inquiry having been conducted. The prosecutor did not act in accordance with any established procedure and merely transmitted the file to the police. The decisionmaking authority was the Director of the Passport Department of the Ministry of the Interior (see paragraph 22 above). 126. Furthermore, the decision to deport Mr Al-Nashif was taken without disclosing any reasons to the applicants, to their lawyer or to any independent body competent to examine the matter. Under Bulgarian law the Ministry of the Interior was empowered to issue deportation orders interfering with fundamental human rights without following any form of adversarial procedure, without giving any reasons and without any possibility for appeal to an independent authority. 127. It is highly significant that the above legal regime was the object of challenges in Bulgaria and that the judiciary was divided. The Sofia City Court and the Supreme Administrative Court in some cases refused to accept blank assertions by the executive in unreasoned decisions under the Aliens Act. Some members of Parliament and judges of the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the existing legal regime was unconstitutional (see paragraphs 38, 71 and 72 above). The Constitutional Court, when examining a challenge to the above legal regime, could not reach a majority, half of the judges holding that the unavailability in Bulgarian law of judicial review of deportations in cases where the Ministry of the Interior relied on “national security” was contrary to the Constitution and to the Convention, as such a legal regime left unfettered discretion to the executive and opened the door to possible abuse (see paragraphs 73-77 above). 128. This Court finds that Mr Al-Nashif's deportation was ordered pursuant to a legal regime that does not provide the necessary safeguards against arbitrariness.