Chapter 2 • The Major Universal Human Rights Instruments and the Mechanisms for Their Implementation objectives, such as national security, public order, public health and morals, or respect for the fundamental rights of others. However, the limitations can only be lawfully imposed if they are provided or prescribed by law and are also necessary in a democratic society for one or more of the legitimate purposes defined in the provisions concerned. It is true that the reference to “a democratic society” is only to be found in articles 21 and 22(2) concerning the limitations that can be imposed respectively on the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of association, whilst it is absent from the limitation provisions regarding the right to freedom of movement, the right to freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs and the right to freedom of expression. However, it follows from an interpretation of these provisions in the light of the wider context of the Covenant itself, as well as its object and purpose, that this notion forms an intrinsic part of all limitation provisions concerned and will consequently condition their interpretation.22 As pointed out in Chapter 1, the limitation provisions reflect carefully weighed individual and general interests which have also to be balanced against each other when the limitations are applied in a specific case. This means not only that the laws per se that provide for the possibility of limitations on the exercise of rights must be proportionate to the stated legitimate aim, but also that the criterion of proportionality must be respected when applied to a specific individual. The subsidiarity of the international system for the protection of human rights means, however, that it falls in the first instance to the domestic authorities to assess both the legitimate need for any restrictions on the exercise of human rights and also their necessity/proportionality. The additional international supervision of the measures taken comes into play only in connection with the examination of the States parties’ reports or individual communications submitted under the First Optional Protocol. The criteria to look for in order to determine whether the exercise of a right has been lawfully limited are: l the principle of legality, in that the restrictive measure must be based in law; l the principle of a legitimate aim in a democratic society; restrictions on the exercise of human rights cannot be lawfully justified under the Covenant for reasons not expressly contained therein or for purposes alien to the effective protection of human rights; l the principle of proportionality, in that the interference with the exercise of the individual’s right must be necessary for the legitimate purpose or purposes; it follows that it is not sufficient that the measure is simply reasonable or possibly advisable: it must be necessary. 22 See Anna-Lena Svensson-McCarthy, The International Law of Human Rights and States of Exception – With Special Reference to the Travaux Préparatoires and Case-Law of the International Monitoring Organs (The Hague/Boston/London, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998), pp. 112-114, in particular the reasoning on p. 113. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 35