Content and structure
Scope and content (abstract)
The dictatorial authorities' propensity for secrecy can be traced to their conspirative approach to regulating the state structure itself. From an archivist's viewpoint, the most important source in this regard is the highly classified Collection of Directives of the Central Archives of the Interior Ministry of the Hungarian People's Republic. At the moment, the MI's currently applicable Rules and Regulations of Organizational Structure and Procedures, together with its Appendix, the Instructions for Handling Cases (Documents), regulates the handling of material not covered by Act LXVI of 1995 (Act LXVI of 1995 on Public Records, Public Archives, and the Protection of Private Archives). After the democratic transformation of the country, there were two principal organizational and institutional changes that determined the status of the archive materials of the MI. Following the democratic changes, the documents relating to state security were mostly transferred to the newly established Bureau of National Security, Bureau of Military Intelligence and Bureau of Information (Most of the documents covered by the Archive Act were transferred to the Hungarian National Archives). The Historical Office, which was established in 1997 and later was renamed the Historical Archives of the State Security Services, received a large quantity of documents, mostly from the Documentation Department.
From the point of view of organizational structure, the Central Archives of the Interior Ministry is subordinated to the Archive Department of the Bureau of the Under-Secretary of Public Administration. The Central Archives is a functional archive with a long history. Its current documents serve the smooth functioning of the MI, while the greater part of its material belongs to the "registratura antiqua." This explains the fact that although its documents primarily belong to the archive material of a public service organization, it still functions as a research archive - its material can be studied either in order to retrieve information or to assist in other forms of academic research. Until recently, the core material of the Central Archives consisted of documents produced at the ministerial offices by the under-secretaries and the deputy minister, as well as at the ministerial, collegial meetings and the meetings of the national police chiefs, and also at the Presidential Department and the Department of Public Order. Most of these documents have been transferred to the Hungarian National Archives. However, the legal fate of its most important and also most voluminous unit, the Collection of Directives, has not yet been settled. Nevertheless, it may be of some significance that already there is a designated place for the Collection of Directives within the fond and stock list of the Historical Archives of State Security Services under Section 4, Fond 4.2, although it is still left blank at the moment.
The Collection of Directives basically serves as a list of commands, regulations, instructions, procedural rules and regulations about the organization and functioning of the MI. These historical documents have been kept in the Central Archives since 1947, although access to documents produced after 1980 - under the Archive Law and the Interior Ministry's procedural rules - is still limited, with the revision of their classification taking place continuously. The Hungarian National Archives' repertory catalogue relating to the pre-1945 documents of the MI Archives was based on the previous subject headings of the Ministry's central archives. These failed to make provision for a separate collection of directives, just as the central archiving failed to set up a separate sub-division for the subsequent period. The Collection of Directives took its present structural form in the 1990s, with its live archival section continuously expanding.
In addition to decrees, procedural rules, actions and memorandums, the directives are the MI's orders: high-level administrative and legal instructions - not qualifying for the status of statute laws - issued by the divisions of the Interior Ministry. Generally speaking, directives are used to regulate official tasks and rules regarding military discipline and order, as well as dealing with enlisted personnel. Before 1990, directives could be issued by the minister, the under-secretary, the deputy ministers, the deputy departmental heads, the independent departmental heads and, within the scope of their specific authority, all commanding officers. But the Collection of Directives is much more inclusive than a mere catalogue of these commands. It also includes the ministerial directives with the status of statute laws. Ministerial directives are used to regulate the implementation of higher-level statute laws and to list the tasks of the organizations concerned, as well as the issues regarding the direction and management of the Interior Ministry's work and the execution of professional tasks. Before 1990, ministerial directives could be issued by the minister, the under-secretary, and the deputy ministers appointed by the minister. The so-called "legal guidelines," which did not have the status of statutory law, also belonged to the Catalogue of Directives. As principal guidelines, these related to the interpretation and execution of low-level statutory laws. Another specific area of the Collection of Directives was constituted by the joint commands, instructions and legal guidelines, which the MI issued jointly with some other organizations - the Chief Public Prosecutor, the Ministry of Defense and the Central Command of the Workers' Militia.
The Collection of Directives is not a comprehensive and coherent collection of documents. Sometimes documents that should have been placed in the Collection of Directives on the basis of their content have been kept with other materials, mostly ministerial or deputy-ministerial documents (the reverse can also be true), while others are missing altogether. While the principle of provenance is consistently applied, the archive referencing - usually due to a mistake made by the producer of the document - is often inaccurate, contradictory or incomplete.
The Committee for Document Survey appointed by the Minister of Interior also called attention to the above mentioned problems in its report filed in 1995. (The Report of the Committee for Document Survey. Central Archives, Appendix no. 3. The Minister of Interior's instruction no. 5/1995 about the survey of documents held by the Interior Ministry and its affiliated branches. BM KI 05/1995 BM ut.) According to this, the Central Archives "was unable to fully execute the task in the manner required by the then existing regulations on the handling of documents. It took over, or may have taken over, the documents of the various organizational units irregularly, and the sorting and discarding of documents was done inappropriately." The report makes the additional remark that, despite the work carried out since 1990, the majority of the documents held there are not catalogued properly. In addition, there is a blatant deficiency of documents from the period between 1950 and 1960; the sequence of ministerial and deputy-ministerial documents is incomplete; and the documents issued by the main divisions and departments are missing.
With regard to the historical preliminaries, the only point raised in connection with the changes introduced in the handling of post-World-War-Two documents by the earlier mentioned Hungarian National Archives' repertory catalogue of the Interior Ministry's Archives in connection with the pre-1945 documents concerned the fact that "in the early 1950s the most important documents related to the working-class movement at the end of the First World War and during the subsequent Counter-Revolution were moved to the Archives of the MSZMP's /Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party's/ Party History Institute." In actual fact, the introduction of the Repertory makes the point - while the quoted section obviously refers to the MDP /Hungarian Workers' Party/ Party History Institute - that no major changes had taken place in the archival system prior to the 1950s. This was, indeed, the case. Between 1945 and 1950, the main tasks of the Ministry included the direction of the apparatus of public administration and the management of the affairs pertaining to public security, law enforcement and state security. With regard to document handling, the Interior Ministry of the Provisional National Government effectively continued the traditions laid down by the Hungarian Royal Interior Ministry, in that the Ministry filed its documents in much the same manner.
The first fundamental change took place in 1950 with the establishment of the State Security Agency as a separate department. This was when the various state security branches were amalgamated into one body; a ministerial directive was issued subsequently to establish the "Central Operative Registry of Anti-Democratic Elements" and, parallel with this, to abolish all the other registries that had operated separately before. The directive also made provisions for the arrangement of the documents created during the investigative, intelligence and counter-intelligence work so as to form a single operative, hierarchical system of dossiers, to replace the filing system used earlier. This was accompanied by personal files placed in a central, operative registry. Within the department, a central, operative archive was created, to which the (already closed) documents produced either at the central state security agency or the counties' own state security agencies had to be submitted for archiving. Parallel with this, the operative registry department took over from the Ministry of Justice the documents produced by the people's tribunals between 1945 and 1949.
Although the MI was spared from the task of having to manage the operative archives before 1953, i.e. during the period that the State Security Agencies (ÁVH) functioned independently, later on the directives issued by the heads of the state security agencies between 1950 and 1953 were added to the Collection of Directives; what is more, even the documentation of the transfer has survived. By contrast, the fact that the documentation of the transfer refers to considerably more items than the archives actually contain, poses a serious problem. The directives are mostly related to the organizational procedures of the State Security Agency, the changes in the rules and regulations, as well as personal files and disciplinary measures, while information about the activities of the State Security Agency is rather scarce.
In 1953, the MI's tasks traditionally associated with the management of the public administration were gradually dwindling; at the same time, the process, which began in 1949 with the structural independence of the state security apparatus, came to a full circle with its re-affiliation to the Interior Ministry in 1953, in the course of which the Interior Ministry effectively had become a ministry of policing. As a result, the various organizational divisions - in reference to the growing need for alertness and secrecy, as revealed by the Collection of Directives itself - became more and more reluctant to exchange information even "within the house", while the number of qualified staff with a comprehensive grasp of the entire ministerial structure rapidly declined. It is understandable that not even the Interior Ministry's Secretariat was in a position to take advantage of its legal licenses laid down in the rules and procedures regulating the handling of documents after the 1950s; in other words, it was unable to carry out the work of the central organization, direction and supervision of document handling itself.
By issuing directive No. 25 of August 29, 1956, the MI's deputy minister in charge regulated the tasks related to the archiving and discarding of documents found at the IM's central state security agencies, which was extended to the documents held by the various MI branches with directive No. 25/1. According to the instructions, the large volume of archived documents "only imposed a burden, at the time when paper was such an important commodity from the viewpoint of the people's economy."
According to the instructions, the files deposited in the archive by the state security organizations between December 31, 1945 and December 31, 1955 were to be revised first - with the exception of those documents which had been placed in the operative files. In the case of the other MI branches, the timeframe for the revision would have been set between January 1, 1947 and December 31, 1953. In both cases, the process of discarding documents was scheduled to take place between October 1, 1956 and January 1, 1957. The MI Secretariat was entrusted with the tasks of managing and supervising the process; however, the events of the 1956 Revolution obviously foiled the execution of the plan.
In his communiqué dated July 12, 1958 (no. 10-2502/1958), the head of the MI Secretariat disapprovingly noted that according to the findings "several MI branches have failed to comply with instruction no. 185/1951 /X.23/ ordering the storing and discarding of documents, issued by the Council of Ministers." The person issuing the communiqué furthermore concluded that there were no archives set up at the MI and its affiliated branches, which led to inappropriate practices in the handling and the storage of documents. To cap it all, at several branches "a large number of documents have been destroyed in an irresponsible manner after the counter-revolutionary events: documents that had survived the events and the protection of which had been made compulsory by the above mentioned directive of the Council of Ministers."
In the interest of registering, sorting and discarding the documents, the head of the MI Secretariat ordered the reorganization of the Central Archives' work in 1959, drawing up the guidelines of the Archives' operation for the entire length of the period under discussion. According to this, the MI Central Archives undertook the handling and storage of all the MI documents, which were indispensable to the operation of the MI branches, or which had significance from a historical or academic viewpoint. For this purpose, the Central Archives was designated to handle and store all the documents that the MI central organizations had deposited in their archives for more than three years - a time window later modified to ten years - and had revised for discarding; the Central Archives was also appointed to direct and supervise the archiving and discarding work of the MI branches.
At every central organization of the MI, the MI Secretariat ordered the periodical revision of all the documents that were more than three years old - in some cases even more recent ones - for the purpose of weeding out unneeded material, which would then be handed over to the Central Archives. The documents that were not filed in the central registry, along with the papers of the secretariats of the minister and the deputy ministers, as well as of the documents produced by the political police, were to be sorted out according to different subject headings before the handover; the transfer of the documents classified as "Top Secret" was preceded by an item-by-item check. The documents deposited in the Central Archives also had to be filed according to different subject-headings - "in the interests of ease of retrieval." The central branches were also required to send to the Central Archives one copy of each of the newspapers, magazines, announcements and brochures that they had ordered, which would then be sorted branch by branch and according to date of publication.
The Secretariat ordered the maintenance of two different types of catalogs. One cataloging system was according to subject-matter for every branch on a year-by-year basis, accompanied by a list of contents and an index-card for every item. This cataloging system was used for the following documents:
- directives, instructions;
- minutes of national conferences;
- annual, monthly, etc. reports on the work accomplished and the execution of various assignments;
- background reports;
- reports on inspection results;
- statistical reports;
- education materials (professional, political);
- materials related to the elections;
- documentation of the construction projects;
- architectural documentation of IM buildings;
- the papers of the secretariats of the minister and the deputy ministers;
- the documents of the political police.
The other cataloging system was based on a registry book. In this case, the documents were filed according to the same system that had been used for their original processing. In the Central Archives the documents were filed according to their serial number, arranged in an annual breakdown - complete with the registry book and a list of subject-headings. This system was mainly used for personnel files, disciplinary procedures, police supervision cases, internment cases and rehabilitation cases.
In addition to managing the documents stored there, the Central Archives was burdened with the extra task of having to supervise the documents of the MI central organizations handled and stored outside the operative departments; on top of that, it had to handle the MI documents deposited at the Hungarian National Archives and the Institute of the Workers' Movement. As if that was not enough, it had to organize the shipping of the documents discarded by the MI organizations to the paper factory for recycling. Access to documents deposited at the Central Archives was only allowed to people who were able to show an official permit signed by the Head of Department - a time limit on the length of loans had to be negotiated by the parties. In the case of civil organizations, access to, or borrowing of, the documents required a permit signed by the Head of the Secretariat.
The other sensitive area in external relations was manifested in relation to the Central Archives and the archival work, most notably in the acquisition of documents. Statutory rule 27 of 1969 on the organizational structure and on the protection of archive material was also extended to cover this particular area of archival work. This statutory rule required that all legal corporations producing documents had to devise procedural rules and regulations regarding the handling of documents, accompanied by a plan scheduling the tasks of archiving, which together formed the basis of document handling procedures. The archival schedule specified the period of storage and, in the case of documents that could not be destroyed, also the time of archiving. It was on this basis that the handling and storage of the documents had to be organized, the supervision of which was assigned to the Hungarian National Archives in the case of the MI Central Archives. In principle, this authorization would have guaranteed a strict regulation in the case of documents designated for archiving, and would also have preserved them from destruction before their archival deposition. However, in practice the execution of this task turned out to be less well organized, owing both to the inadequate training of the personnel and to the lack of appropriate technical conditions. On the one hand, there were not enough archivists qualified to do this work, and on the other hand the storage capacity turned out to be insufficient.
The above mentioned report by the Committee for Document Survey shed light on a number of strange anomalies. After the end of the 1960s, the MI flatly rejected any suggestions made by the National Archives, opposing almost every attempt by the latter to establish any sort of working relationship. Although in 1972 the National Archives described as ineffectual the Ministry's rules and regulations for document handling, its criticism turned out to be completely wasted in view of the fact that the Ministry of Education finally decided to approve it. Later on, the representative of the Archives was received only after drawn-out negotiations, and in the best of cases was "able to get as far as Head of the Document Handling Sub-Department, but never allowed to go even near the archives." It turned out that in its procedures of discarding documents the MI not only disregarded the statutory rules, but occasionally failed to observe even the rules laid down in its own internal regulations and circular memorandums. In such procedures they failed to take into account the viewpoints of archivists, which was manifested in the fact that the opinion of the relevant archives were not sought out beforehand; presumably, "they gave priority to the requirement of vigilance, which, although not always a consistent policy, fitted in with the official political line and system of management of the period." Regardless of all that, the possibility cannot be excluded - the report continues - that occasionally a qualified archivist also took part in the work of supervising the discarding of documents, although "that person generally was appointed at the explicit request of the MI."
By now it has become patently clear that such methods of legal regulation infringed the citizens' right and the fundamental principles of law even according to the then existing Constitution. In accordance with that Constitution, "The People's Republic of Hungary guarantees the personal freedom and privacy of its citizens and respects the sanctity of private correspondence and private home." After the democratic changes, the Constitutional Court put a definite end to the central administration's aspirations to establish norms through non-legal means. It rejected in principle the legality of the practice of laying down norms with the help of decrees and authoritative statements as being a method of regulation that crosses various types of organizations.
Known as "MI directives," the commands issued by the MI constituted the highest-level administrative and legal means for the direction and management of the IM branches. Before 1990, the right to issue such directives was basically reserved for the minister, the under-secretary, the deputy ministers, the deputy department heads, the head of the MI Secretariat, the national (Government Guard) commanders and the departmental heads. However, the Collection of Directives also contained other types of commands. These include ministerial decrees, which - unlike the directives - counted as statute laws. Usually ministerial decrees served to regulate the manner of implementing higher-level legislation and to define the tasks of various branches, along with addressing questions pertaining to the direction and management of the work at the IM and the technical execution of tasks. Before 1990, only the minister, the under-secretary and the deputy ministers specifically appointed by the minister were entitled to issue ministerial decrees. Also included in the Collection of Directives were the so-called "legal guidelines," which did not have the status of statute laws. These guidelines or statements of principles were published in order to aid the interpretation and application of lower-level statute laws. The directives, instructions and legal guidelines issued jointly with other organizations - such as the Attorney General, the Ministry of Defense, and the National High Command of the Workers' Militia - formed a separate group within the Collection of Directives.
In order to obtain a better insight into the internal structure of the Collection of Directives, we must take a closer look at those legal instruments which are referred to as "legal sources" in the ministerial decrees, legal guidelines and IM directives. On January 13, 1976, the MI issued a decree which determined the procedural rules relating to the issuing of such documents of legal force. This covered the entire range of ministerial decrees, legal guidelines, and MI regulations. A ministerial decree constituted a statute law. The aim of the legal guidelines, which did not qualify for the status of statue laws and were formulated either as guidelines or as statements of principles, was to assist in the interpretation and the application of statute laws, either comprehensively or on specific points.
The crucial significance of issuing the above mentioned decree lay in the fact that Statute Law 24 of 1974 on the proclamation and promulgation of statute laws, along with the ministerial decree 1063/1974 (XII.30.) on the technical details of implementation, pressed for the introduction of standard procedures at the various ministries. The instruction applied to ministerial instructions, legal guidelines and MI directives, replacing the ministerial instruction 01/1965 on the same subject.
During the period in question, a ministerial decree had the status of a statute law; its purpose was to normalize the mode of execution of legal acts of higher order, as well as to regulate various other areas, such as the tasks of certain organizations and the questions relating to the direction and management of work at the MI and the technical execution of the tasks. The minister, the under-secretary and the deputy ministers appointed by the minister were entitled to issue such decrees. Within their own sphere of authority, the under-secretary and the deputy ministers issued ministerial decrees to regulate the questions relating both to the Interior Ministry as a whole and to the work of the organizations under their control.
De iure, the legal guidelines issued in connection with the interpretation and application of statute laws, which took the form of either guiding principles or statements of principles, did not qualify for the status of statute law. Guiding principles were issued by the minister, the under-secretary and the deputy minister, whenever it was necessary to provide either a comprehensive interpretation of a statue law or a definition of the main principles in the application of the law.
Besides the persons occupying the above mentioned posts, the list of people entitled to issue statements of principle included the deputy heads of the main divisions, the head of the IM Secretariat, the national (Government Guard) commanders, the deputies of the high command, the divisional heads and the heads of independent departments, whenever the need arose to interpret parts of a statue law (rather than the whole) or to define standard procedures in the application of the laws. The MI's legal means to direct and manage the Interior Ministry - directives, regulations, procedural orders, actions, memorandums - did not qualify for the status of statute law.
As it was already mentioned, the Collection of Directives was not comprised entirely by directives in the strict sense of the word. As the most general form of executive commands, these directives also included instructions regarding duty service, military discipline and order, as well as the personnel. From the minister down to the heads of independent departments, every leader had the right to issue directives.
A code of procedures regulating the MI duty services had to be drawn up, which also covered the rules of conduct for IM personnel, along with their fundamental rights and duties; in addition, it also specified the general tasks of duty services, as well as some general rules regarding the activities of the various ministerial branches, the invocation of which itself required a separate directive.
The code of procedures defined the role of the MI branches within the organizational structure of the MI, along with their professional competences; it also listed the tasks and the authority of the heads of department within that particular branch. (Being voluminous by their nature, the codes of procedures were usually published in book format.)
The specific organizations were ordered to implement a statute law or an MI directive, or any action to be taken in a given case, by the departmental heads or commanders in a decree; memorandums were used to notify or inform the different branches and to assign tasks in connection with the actions to be taken.
For special cases or war situations, the instruction specifically ordered that the decrees, legal guidelines and MI directives had to be prepared by the "M" and the Organizational Division of the MI.
A belügyminisztériumi parancs olyan belügyi rendelkezés, amely a Belügyminisztérium (BM) szervei irányításának és vezetésének legmagasabb szintű vezetési és jogi eszköze. 1990 előtt parancs kiadására elsősorban a miniszter, az államtitkár, a miniszterhelyettesek, a főcsoportfőnök-helyettesek, a BM Titkárság vezetője, az országos (Kormányőrség) parancsnokok, a csoportfőnökök voltak jogosultak. De tapasztalható az is, hogy a Parancsgyűjtemény nem csupán a fenti értelemben vett parancsokat tartalmazza. Itt szerepelnek a miniszteri utasítások is, amelyek - szemben a paranccsal - jogszabályok. Miniszteri utasítás szabályozza a magasabb szintű jogszabályok végrehajtásának rendjét, az arra hivatott szervek feladatait, a belügyi munka irányítására, vezetésére, a szakmai jellegű feladatok végrehajtására vonatkozó kérdéseket. 1990 előtt miniszteri utasítás kiadására jogosult volt a miniszter, az államtitkár és a miniszter által feljogosított miniszterhelyettesek. De a jogszabálynak nem minősülő ún. jogi iránymutatások is a Parancsgyűjteménybe tartoznak. Ezek mint irányelvek vagy elvi állásfoglalások az alacsonyabb szintű jogszabályok értelmezésére, alkalmazására vonatkoznak. A Parancsgyűjtemény sajátos részét képezik azok a közös parancsok, utasítások, jogi iránymutatások, amelyeket más szervek - a Legfőbb Ügyészség, a Honvédelmi Minisztérium, a Munkásőrség Országos Parancsnoksága - együttműködésével adott ki a BM.
Segítséget nyújt a Parancsgyűjtemény belső struktúrájának megértéséhez, ha az iratképzőként szereplő szervek után megismerjük azokat a jogi eszközöket is, amelyekben „jogforráskent" a miniszteri utasítások, a jogi iránymutatások és a belügyi rendelkezések megjelennek. Ezek kibocsátásának rendjéről a belügyminiszter 1976. január 13-án adott ki utasítást. Ennek a hatálya alá tartoznak a miniszteri utasítások, a jogi iránymutatások, a belügyi rendelkezések. A miniszteri utasítás jogszabály. A jogszabálynak nem minősülő ún. jogi iránymutatások a jogszabályok átfogó vagy egyes részei értelmezésére, alkalmazására vonatkoznak és irányelvek, vagy elvi állasfoglalás formájában jelennek meg.
Az utasítás kiadását az tette fontossá, hogy a jogszabályok kihirdetéséről és hatálybalépéséről szóló 1974. évi 24. számú törvényerejű rendelet és a végrehajtására kiadott 1063/1974. (XII. 30.) Mt. h. számú határozat egyaránt sürgette a tárcáknál az egységes gyakorlat biztosítását. Az utasítás a miniszteri utasításokra, a jogi iránymutatásokra, valamint a belügyi rendelkezésekre terjedt ki és az azonos tárgyban kiadott 01/1965. sz. miniszteri utasítást váltotta fel.
A miniszteri utasítást akkoriban olyan jogszabálynak tekintették, amellyel a magasabb szintű jogi normák végrehajtásának rendjét, az arra hivatott szervek feladatait, a belügyi munka irányítására, vezetésére, a szakmai jellegű feladatok végrehajtására vonatkozó kérdéseket szabályozták. Kiadására a miniszter, az államtitkár és a miniszter által felhatalmazott miniszterhelyettesek jogosultak. Az államtitkár és a miniszterhelyettesek hatáskörükben - a BM egészére vonatkozó, illetve az irányításuk alá tartozo szervek munkáját rendező - kérdéseket szabályozták miniszteri utasításban.
De iure sem minősültek viszont jogszabálynak a jogszabályok értelmézésére, alkalmazására vonatkozó jogi iránymutatások, amilyenek az irányelv és az elvi állásfoglalás. Irányelvet a miniszter, az államtitkár vagy a miniszterhelyettes akkor adott ki, ha szükség mutatkozott valamely jogszabály átfogó értelmezésére, a jogalkalmázásban követendő főbb elvek meghatározására.
Elvi állásfoglalást a fenti vezetőkön túl a főcsoportfőnök-helyettesek, a BM Titkárság vezetője, az országos (Kormányőrség) parancsnokok, az országos parancsnokhelyettesek, a csoportfőnökök és az önálló osztályvezetők is kiadhatták, amennyiben valamely jogszabály (nem általános, hanem egyes) kérdéseinek értelmezése, az egységes jogalkalmazói gyakorlat meghatározására ez szükséges volt. A BM szervei irányítására és vezetésére szolgáló belügyi rendelkezések - parancs, szabályzat, ügyrend, intézkedés, körlevél - ugyancsak nem minősültek jogi eszköznek.
A parancsról tudjuk, hogy nem (csak) ezek összessége képezi a Parancsgyűjteményt. A parancs, mint a legáltalánosabb vezetési eszköz a szolgálati feladatokra, a katonai fegyelemre és rendre, valamint a személyi állományra vonatkozó rendelkezéseket foglalja magába. A minisztertől kezdve az önálló osztályvezetőkön át hatáskörében valamennyi vezető, parancsnok élhet a parancsadás jogával.
Szabályzatban kellett meghatározni a belügyi szolgálat ellátásának rendjét, a személyi állomány magatartási szabályait, alapvető jogait és kötelezettségeit, a szolgálati szervek általános feladatait, valamint a minisztérium egyes szervei tevékenységének általános szabályait, amelyeket külön paranccsal kellett hatályba léptetni.
Az ügyrend az illetekes szervnek a BM szervezetében betöltött funkcióját, szakmai feladatkörét, a szervezeten belül működő vezetők feladatát, hataskörét rögzítette. [A Parancsgyűjtemény az ügyrendeket terjedelmük miatt többnyire könyv formájában őrizte meg.]
Az érintett szervek számára valamely jogszabály, vagy belügyi rendelkezés végrehajtását, illetve egy meghatározott ügyben történt teendőit intézkedésben határozta meg a parancsnok, míg a körlevélben az egyes szervek értesítésével, tájékoztatásával összefüggő kérdéseket, valamint az intézkedések megtételével kapcsolatos feladatokat jelölte ki.
Speciális helyzetre, háborús időszakra írta elő az utasítás, hogy a miniszter által kiadásra kerülő utasítást, jogi iránymutatást és belügyi rendelkezést a BM „M" és Szervezési Csoportfőnökségnek kell előkészítenie.
A fenti iratokból készült válogatás nyomán került közel ezer dokumentum az OSA Archivumhoz.