A/HRC/29/32 unbounded discretion to apply the limitation (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011)). Proposals to impose restrictions on encryption or anonymity should be subject to public comment and only be adopted, if at all, according to regular legislative process. Strong procedural and judicial safeguards should also be applied to guarantee the due process rights of any individual whose use of encryption or anonymity is subject to restriction. In particular, a court, tribunal or other independent adjudicatory body must supervise the application of the restriction.15 33. Second, limitations may only be justified to protect specified interests: rights or reputations of others; national security; public order; public health or morals. Even where a State prohibits by law “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, as provided by Article 20 of the Covenant, any restrictions on expression must be consistent with Article 19(3) (A/67/357). No other grounds may justify restrictions on the freedom of expression. Moreover, because legitimate objectives are often cited as a pretext for illegitimate purposes, the restrictions themselves must be applied narrowly.16 34. Third, the State must show that any restriction on encryption or anonymity is “necessary” to achieve the legitimate objective.17 The European Court of Human Rights has concluded appropriately that the word “necessary” in article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms means that the restriction must be something more than “useful,” “reasonable” or “desirable”.18 Once the legitimate objective has been achieved, the restriction may no longer be applied. Given the fundamental rights at issue, limitations should be subject to independent and impartial judicial authority, in particular to preserve the due process rights of individuals. 35. Necessity also implies an assessment of the proportionality of the measures limiting the use of and access to security online.19 A proportionality assessment should ensure that the restriction is “the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result”. 20 The limitation must target a specific objective and not unduly intrude upon other rights of targeted persons, and the interference with third parties’ rights must be limited and justified in the light of the interest supported by the intrusion. The restriction 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 2 (3)(b); CCPR/C/79/Add.110, para. 22; the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 on freedom of opinion and expression, para. 30, and ghttp://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/download.aspx?symbolno=ccpr%2 52fc%252f21%252frev.1%252fadd.13&lang=eneneral chttp://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/download.aspx?symbolno=ccpr%2 52fc%252f21%252frev.1%252fadd.13&lang=enomment No. 31. See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 2, and communication No. 2156/2012, Views adopted on 10 October 2014. See Case of The Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, judgement of 26 April 1979, para. 59. See African Court Human and Peoples’ Rights, Lohe Issa Konate v. Burkina Faso, application No. 004/2013, paras. 148 and 149 (2014); European Court of Human Rights, Case of The Sunday Times, para. 62. See Human Rights Committee, ghttp://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/download.aspx?symbolno=ccpr%2 52fc%252f21%252frev.1%252fadd.9&lang=eneneral chttp://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/download.aspx?symbolno=ccpr%2 52fc%252f21%252frev.1%252fadd.9&lang=enomment No. 27 (1999) on freedom of movement, para. 14.