2. This broad definition of private life is reflected in human rights case law. Respect for private life encompasses more broadly the right:    To be oneself To live as oneself To keep to oneself 3. Privacy is also essential to maintaining a functioning community. For example, families need privacy to function, as do friends, workplaces, and even political parties. Privacy allows groups to form and function without undue interference. The public and private spheres necessarily interact and they are not mutually exclusive. Almost everyone must carry on their life partly in public. 4. What is clear is that, as a matter of human rights law, the concept of private life is made up of concentric rings. The inner core of privacy rights is that notion of privacy which is essential and elemental for the individual to exist as who they are. However, the notion of privacy then broadens to include, amongst other things, personal and social relationships. 5. Included, therefore, within the idea of private life are personal freedoms, personal autonomy, personal integrity and personal relations. These ideas form part of a broader notion of the State’s limited role within the private sphere where individual development is concerned. That wider notion of privacy includes more straightforward ideas such as State control of individuals within society, regulation of private conduct and surveillance. 6. States have obligations not only to refrain from interference in the right to privacy but also to protect against acts by private individuals or entities.795 This positive obligation will involve putting in place a legal framework to prosecute crimes that is effectively enforced and results in the proper protection of victims.796 7. The concept of the ‘family’ in the ICCPR has been held by the Human Rights Committee to include that as understood in the State concerned.797 The term ‘home’ is held ‘to indicate the place where a person resides or carries out his usual occupation’.798 Private life will also exist in the workplace.799 8. Any interference in an individual’s right to privacy must be prescribed by law, in accordance with the aims of the particular treaty and reasonable in the circumstances.800 Furthermore, it must be necessary in a democratic society, 795 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.16 HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 142 (2003), para 1. European Court, X and Y v Netherlands, 26 March 1985. 796 European Court, A v Croatia, 14 January 2011. 797 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.16 HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 142 (2003), para 5. 798 Ibid. 799 European Court, Halford v UK, 25 June 1997; Roeman and Schmit v Luxembourg, 25 May 2003. 800 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.16 HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 142 (2003), paras 3-4. European Court, Keegan v UK, 18 October 2006. 130