40 106. Jurisprudence 106.1 Jurisprudence regarding the restrictions on the exercise of rights has developed the principle that, the restrictions must be necessary in a democratic society; they must be reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Once the complainant has established that there is a prima facie violation of a right, the respondent state may argue that the right has been legitimately restricted by “law”, by providing evidence that the restriction serves one of the purposes set out in Article 27(2) of the Charter. In Communications No 105/93, 128/94, 130/94, 152/96 (Consolidated Communications) Media Rights Agenda and others v Nigeria Fourteenth Activity Report (2000-2001) and Communication No 255/2002 Gareth Anver Prince v South Africa Eighteenth Activity Report (July 2004 –December 2004), the Commission has stated that the “only legitimate reasons for limitations to the rights and freedoms of the African Charter” are found in Article 2 (7 (2) of the Charter. After assessing whether the restriction is effected through a “law of general application”, the Commission applies a proportionality test, in terms of which it weighs the impact, nature and extent of the limitation against the legitimate state interest serving a particular goal. The legitimate interest must be “proportionate with and absolutely necessary for the advantages which are to be obtained”. 106.2 The European Court of Human Rights (“European Court”) also adopts a similar approach. In Handyside vs. United Kingdom, Application No 5493/72 Judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24 at paragraph 49, the Court stated that: