excludes from the protection of the Covenant activities or acts ‘aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised’ in the Covenant.91 18. With respect to public health or morals, the Human Rights Committee has noted ‘the concept of morals derives from many social, philosophical and religious traditions’ and so restrictions on freedoms ‘must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition’.92 Equally, there is ‘no universally applicable common standard’.93 Necessity and proportionality 19. ‘Necessary’ does not mean indispensable, but neither does it mean ‘reasonable’ or ‘desirable’.94 It requires that the limitations are for a ‘compelling governmental interest’,95 and are only imposed for the purposes for which they were intended and that they must be ‘directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated’.96 20. Therefore the limitations must be ‘appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve the desired result’.97 21. What proportionality requires is that there is a reasonable relationship between the means employed and the aims sought to be achieved. Essentially proportionality requires a court ultimately to determine whether a measure of interference which is aimed at promoting a legitimate public policy is either:   Unacceptably broad in its application; or Has imposed an excessive or unreasonable burden on certain individuals.98 22. Factors to consider when assessing whether or not an action is disproportionate are:      91 92 Have relevant and sufficient reasons been advanced in support of it? Was there a less restrictive measure? Has there been some measure of procedural fairness in the decision making process? Do safeguards against abuse exist? Does the restriction in question destroy the ‘very essence’ of the right in question? Ibid. See also Communication 117/1981, M.A. v Italy, 10 April 1984, para 13.3. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 22, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4 (1993), paragraph 8. 93 Communication No. 61/1979, L Hertzberg et al v Finland, 2 April 1982, para 10.3. Sunday Times v UK, European Court, 26 April 1979. 95 Inter-American Court, Ivcher Bronstein v Peru, 6 Feb 2001, Series C. No.74, para 156. 96 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 22, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4 (1993), paragraph 8. 97 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999), paragraph 14. 98 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add/13 (2004). 94 36