A/HRC/23/40 adopted, the impact of advances in information and communications technologies on the right to privacy was barely understood. 26. In its General Comment No. 34 (2011) on the right to freedom of expression, the Human Rights Committee indicated that States parties should take account of the extent to which developments in information and communication technologies have substantially changed communication practices. The Committee also called on States parties to take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media. The General Comment also analyses the relationship between the protection of privacy and freedom of expression, and recommends that States parties respect that element of the right of freedom of expression that embraces the limited journalistic privilege not to disclose information sources. 10 27. Tensions also exist between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, for example, when information considered to be private is disseminated through the media. In this sense, article 19 (3) provides for restrictions on freedom of expression and information to protect the rights of others. However, as it happens for all permissible limitations to the right to freedom of expression (see below), the principle of proportionality must be strictly observed, since there is otherwise danger that freedom of expression would be undermined. Particularly in the political arena, not every attack on the good reputation of politicians must be permitted, since freedom of expression and information would otherwise be stripped of their crucial importance for the process of forming political opinions, 11 advocating for transparency and combating corruption The international jurisprudence at regional level indicates that in situations of conflict between privacy and freedom of expression, reference should be made to the overall public interest on the matters reported.12 B. Permissible limitations to privacy and freedom of expression 28. The framework of article 17 of the ICCPR enables necessary, legitimate and proportionate restrictions to the right to privacy by means of permissible limitations. In contrast with the provisions of article 19, paragraph 3, which spell out elements of a test for permissible limitations,13 the formulation of article 17 does not contain a limitation clause. Despite these differences in wording, it is understood that article 17 of the Covenant should also be interpreted as containing elements of a permissible limitations test already described in other General Comments of the Human Rights Committee. 14 29. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur takes the position that the right to privacy should be subject to the same permissible limitations test as the right to freedom of movement, as elucidated in General Comment 27.15 The test as expressed in the comment includes, inter alia, the following elements: 10 11 12 13 14 15 8 (a) Any restrictions must be provided by the law (paras. 11-12); (b) The essence of a human right is not subject to restrictions (para. 13); CCPR General Comment No. 34. Nowak, Manfred, United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (1993), p.462 UNESCO, Global Survey on Internet Privacy and Freedom of Expression, 2012, pp. 53 and 99. Lists of permissible limitations are also included in art. 12, (3), on the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence; art. 18, (3), on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; art. 21, on the right of peaceful assembly; and art. 22, (2), on the right to freedom of association. Ibid. See also CCPR General Comment No. 34.