A/HRC/29/32 judicial authority, in particular to preserve the due process rights of targets, and only adopted when necessary and when less intrusive means of investigation are not available. Such measures may only be justified if used in targeting a specific user or users, subject to judicial oversight. Legal presumptions 46. Some States may identify the mere use of encryption technologies as illicit behaviour. For instance, charges against the Zone 9 blogger collective in Ethiopia included suggestions that the mere training in communication security was evidence of criminal behaviour. 36 Such presumptions fail to meet the standards for permissible restrictions. Similarly, States undermine the rights to privacy and freedom of expression when they penalize those who produce and distribute tools to facilitate online access for activists. 2. Anonymity 47. Anonymity has been recognized for the important role it plays in safeguarding and advancing privacy, free expression, political accountability, public participation and debate.37 The Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights do not address anonymity. During negotiation of the Covenant, it was proposed to include in article 19 (1) the phrase, “anonymity is not permitted”. However, this was rejected “on the grounds, among others, that anonymity might at times be necessary to protect the author” and “that such a clause might prevent the use of pen names”. 38 The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found that “the right to freedom of thought and expression and the right to private life protect anonymous speech from government restrictions”. 39 Several States enjoy long traditions of celebrating anonymity in their political cultures, but very few provide general protection in law for anonymous expression. Some States exert significant pressure against anonymity, offline and online. Yet because anonymity facilitates opinion and expression in significant ways online, States should protect it and generally not restrict the technologies that provide it. Several States’ judiciaries have protected anonymity, at least in limited instances. For instance, the Supreme Court of Canada recently struck down the warrantless acquisition of anonymous user identity online. 40 The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea struck down anti-anonymity laws as unconstitutional. 41 The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently protected the right to anonymous expression. 42 The European Court of Human Rights has recognized anonymity as important to the freedom of expression but permits limitations in cases where necessary to achieve legitimate objectives. 36 37 See http://trialtrackerblog.org/2014/07/19/contextual-translation-of-the-charges-of-the-zone9bloggers/. See, e.g., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/docs/reports/2014_04_22_ ia_2013_eng _finalweb.pdfOEA /Serv.L/V/II.149, para. 134; United States, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections 38 39 40 41 42 Commission (1995); Lord Neuberger, speech to RB Conference on the Internet, entitled, “What’s a name? Privacy and Anonymous Speech on the Internet” (2014). Marc J. Bossuyt, Guide to the “Travaux Préparatoires” of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1987), pp. 379-80. See Organization of American States, press release 17/15. R. v. Spencer (2014). Decision 2010 Hun-Ma 47, 252 (consolidated) announced 28 August 2012. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), pp. 342 and 343. 17