A/HRC/13/37 respect for his/her private and family life, his/her home and correspondence,7 or the right to have his/her dignity, personal integrity or good reputation recognized and respected.8 While privacy is not always directly mentioned as a separate right in constitutions, nearly all States recognize its value as a matter of constitutional significance. In some countries, the right to privacy emerges by extension of the common law of breach of confidence, the right to liberty, freedom of expression or due process. In other countries, the right to privacy emerges as a religious value. The right to privacy is therefore not only a fundamental human right, but also a human right that supports other human rights and forms the basis of any democratic society. 12. The State’s ability to develop record-keeping facilities was enhanced with the development of information technology. Enhanced computing power enabled previously unimaginable forms of collecting, storing and sharing of personal data. International core data protection principles were developed, including the obligation to: obtain personal information fairly and lawfully; limit the scope of its use to the originally specified purpose; ensure that the processing is adequate, relevant and not excessive; ensure its accuracy; keep it secure; delete it when it is no longer required; and grant individuals the right to access their information and request corrections.9 The Human Rights Committee provided clear indications in its general comment No. 16 that these principles were encapsulated by the right to privacy,10 but data protection is also emerging as a distinct human or fundamental right. Some countries have recognized data protection even as a constitutional right, thereby highlighting its importance as an element of democratic societies. The detailed article 35 of the 1976 Constitution of Portugal can be seen as an example of best practice here. 13. The right to privacy is not an absolute right. Once an individual is being formally investigated or screened by a security agency, personal information is shared among security agencies for reasons of countering terrorism and the right to privacy is almost automatically affected. These are situations where States have a legitimate power to limit the right to privacy under international human rights law. However, countering terrorism is not a trump card which automatically legitimates any interference with the right to privacy. Every instance of interference needs to be subject to critical assessment. B. Permissible limitations to the right to privacy 14. Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the most important legally binding treaty provision on the human right to privacy at the universal level. The Covenant has been ratified by 165 States and signed by another 6 States.11 7 8 9 10 11 6 See the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 8) and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (A/45/421-S/21797, art. 18), 5 August 1990. African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (art. 11). See also the African Union’s Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa (art. 4.3) and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (art. 5). See the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (No. 108), 1981; the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Data Flows of Personal Data (1980); and the Guidelines for the regulation of computerized personal data files (General Assembly resolution 45/95 and E/CN.4/1990/72). Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation (art. 17). As of 16 November 2009. The six countries whose signature has not yet been followed by ratification are China, Cuba, Guinea-Bissau, Nauru, Panama and San Marino. GE.09-17804