Human Rights of Armed Forces Personnel a state would even need to consider derogating from the rights in question, and for that reason derogations of these rights are rarely necessary. For the most part, where the rights of members of the armed forces are limited, this is because the right is a qualified right, rather than because of a derogation. Limitations Many of the rights mentioned earlier as having particular significance to members of the armed forces are qualified rights. This means that the rights in question are not absolute, in that states may restrict these rights provided certain conditions are met. Limitations must be “in accordance with law” or “authorized by law”, and “necessary in a democratic society” for one of a number of specified legitimate aims. The legitimate aims most relevant to situations involving members of the armed forces are those that are “in the interests of national security”, although on occasion “the prevention of disorder” and the protection of the “rights and freedoms of others” have also been cited. Importantly, the ability to invoke one of these recognized legitimate aims does not provide the state with unfettered discretion to limit the rights of members of the armed forces. Rather, the limiting measure needs to be both necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Disagreements regarding restrictions on the rights of service personnel often come down to assessing which limitations are necessary and proportionate and which are not. In this context, the European Court of Human Rights has noted that “[a] wide margin of appreciation is afforded to the States in matters relating to national security in general and the armed forces in particular”.57 It must be emphasized, however, that some rights may not be subjected to such limitations. For example, the prohibition of torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is absolute. Thus, interests of national security, however important, cannot be invoked to impose inhuman punishments on members of the armed forces. Domestic implementation The domestic effect of international human rights law varies considerably from state to state, owing to divergent constitutional provisions. In some states, treaty obligations binding upon the state are automatically part of domestic law and, in some cases, are given priority.58 In these states, domestic courts can apply human rights treaties directly in disputes involving individuals. 48 57 European Court of Human Rights, Konstantin Markin v. Russia, op. cit., note 47, para. 134. 58 See, for example: Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 24 August 1815, Art. 94; Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, 28 June 1992, Art. 123(2).