A/HRC/28/39 interaction and boundaries between the duty of a Government to protect human rights and the responsibility of telecommunications companies to respect human rights. 25. In terms of challenges, Mr. Nissim emphasized that telecommunications companies had many personnel on the ground in various countries and that their safety and security was an absolute priority, as recognized in the fifth guiding principle.5 He also noted that, while the companies engaged in the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue wanted to uphold human rights, in particular freedom of expression and the right to privacy, it was important to recall that they had licence agreements with Governments and were subject to national laws and regulations. Because of the need to protect their staff who were present in-country, companies needed to be able to engage in a dialogue with host Governments whenever necessary. He noted that there were three pressing issues that needed to be resolved. First, Governments should not request or be granted direct access to the telecommunications network. Second, the process through which Governments could make requests to telecommunications companies must be clear and transparent. Third, while telecommunications companies were willing to be transparent about the requests they received, transparency was the responsibility first and foremost of Governments. 26. Turning to the conditions for the lawful restriction of the right to privacy and freedom of expression, Ms. Botero explained that any limitation must be established beforehand by legislation. Such laws must precisely define the causes and conditions that would enable the State to intercept the communications of individuals, collect communications data or subject them to surveillance or monitoring that had an impact on the right to privacy. The law must not be vague or ambiguous, or grant broad discretionary powers to the executive power in its interpretation. It must also provide safeguards pertaining to the nature, scope and duration of surveillance measures. Limitations to the right to privacy must also pursue a legitimate aim. In the case of surveillance, the grounds most likely to be relied upon by the State were national security and the fight against crime. Any limitation must be proportionate and strictly necessary. That means that a true and compelling need to impose the limitation must be clearly established and the objective could not be accomplished by any other less restrictive measure. In any event, the rights should be limited only when the risk to the protected interest, narrowly defined, was greater than the general interest in maintaining the right to privacy and freedom of expression. Ms. Botero also noted that the test must be stronger when the rights protected dealt with the most intimate aspects of a person’s private life. In order to ensure the protection of the principles of legality, proportionality and necessity, decisions to undertake surveillance activities that limited the right to privacy and other rights should be authorized by independent judicial authorities. 27. With regard to proportionality, Ms. Cleveland noted that a measure should be proportionate to the significance of the interests at stake: the interest of the State in pursuing the measure and the privacy interest of the individual. She explained that the more acute the privacy interest of the individual, the more narrowly tailored the measure must be. She referred to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which provided a reasonable margin of appreciation to States, especially in the national security area, to determine on a case-by-case basis what measures were necessary and proportionate to the achievement of a particular State interest. Ms. Cleveland also noted the importance of the procedural safeguards put in place by the State to ensure that the surveillance regime was being applied properly. She noted that there needed to be legal safeguards to define the 5 8 Principle 5 states “Always seek to ensure the safety and liberty of company personnel who may be placed at risk”.