Well, the job has been done very differently than what had originally been perceived. The problem I have with the comments you are making is that, at some time, you have to make the decision between the two legal arguments. It is not simply a matter of you giving a legal opinion and saying, you believe in the researcher. You have to make the judgement about what has been presented to you, either from the government or from an individual who is laying a complaint, and your legal advisor. Then you should make a decision based on it.
My concern with your response is that you're listening only to those people who have given you legal advice in your office. I would really be careful about that. Well, I'm going to ask you the question, then. When have you disagreed with legal arguments? You are shaking your head, saying no. When have you disagreed with the lawyers providing advice to you on the matter of the interpretation of the law? When have you told them and written to them, advising them that their interpretation of the law is not according to what your interpretation is?