52 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) 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 v United Kingdom, Application No 5493/72 Judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A No 24 at paragraph 49, the Court stated that: “The Court’s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterizing a “democratic society”. … This means, amongst other things, that every “formality”, “condition”, “restriction” or “penalty” imposed …must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” This approach was restated in Gillow v United Kingdom Application No 9063/80 Judgment of 24 November 1986 at paragraph 55: “As to the principles relevant to the assessment of the ‘necessity’ of a given measure ‘in a democratic society’, reference should be made to the Court’s case-law. The notion of necessity implies a pressing social need; in particular, the measure employed must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In addition, the scope of the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities will depend not only on the nature of the aim of the restriction but also on the nature of the right involved.” 106.3 Concerning the social need, the European Court does not only verify if the State applied the principle of margin of appreciation in good faith, it also assesses whether the reasons given are “relevant and sufficient”, as the Court specified in Olsson v Sweden Application No 10465/83 Judgment of 24 March 1988 at paragraph 68. 106.4 Next, in accordance with the specification set out in Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden Applications No 7151/75, 7152/75 Judgment of 23 September 1982, the European Court assesses if the interference is proportionate to the legitimate aim, in doing so it “must determine whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights”. 106.5 In order to determine whether the restriction of rights is legal, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is guided by Articles 30 and 32(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) which sets out the scope of restrictions on rights. Article 30 of the ACHR provides that: “The restrictions that, pursuant to this Convention, may be placed on the enjoyment or exercise of the rights or freedoms recognized herein may not be applied except in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established.” On its part, Article 32(2) provides that: “The rights of each person are limited by the rights of others, by the security of all and by the just demands of the general welfare, in a democratic society.” A restriction on rights is authorized only if the legal basis is a legislative act and if the law’s content conforms to the ACHR. The Court requires that the restrictions be legal and legitimate. This approach is settled in Baena Ricardo and others against Panama (Judgment of 2 February 2001).