the limitations must not impair the essence of the right.70 The UN Human Rights Committee has noted that the relationship between a right and a restriction and between a norm and an exception must not be reversed.71 Freedom is the rule and limitation the exception.72 55. The requirement that they must be prescribed by law entails that limitations have a formal legal basis and that the law is clear, unambiguous and precisely worded to enable individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly. Furthermore, the law must be accessible to the public and it must not confer unfettered discretion for the limitation on those charged with its execution.73 The law must be in line with international human rights standards. 56. The ICCPR enumerates as permissible grounds for limitations those that are imposed in the interest of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In relation to the right to freedom of expression, the UN Human Rights Committee has noted that “[r]estrictions are not allowed on grounds not specified in paragraph 3, even if such grounds would justify restrictions to other rights protected in the Covenant. Restrictions must be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related to the specific need on which they are predicated.” 74 Similar grounds for permissible limitations are listed in the ECHR for certain rights. In all provisions related to these rights, the list of permissible grounds for limitations is exhaustive. The legitimate grounds as prescribed in international standards must not be supplemented by additional grounds in domestic legislation. Article 18 of the ECHR (Limitation on use of restrictions on rights) stipulates that “restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.” Article 30 of the ACHR contains a comparable provision that limits the scope of restrictions. 57. The principle of “necessity” implies that there is a “pressing social need” for the interference and that the restriction falls within the limits of what is acceptable in a democratic society.75 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) sees “pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness” as elements without which there can be 70  UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 27, Article 12, “Freedom of Movement”, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, 2 November 1999, para. 13. 71  Ibid. 72  See also report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27, para. 16. 73  See UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 34, Article 19, “Freedoms of opinion and expression”, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, para. 25. 74  UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, para. 22. 75  According to the European Court of Human Rights, “the adjective ‘necessary’, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2, implies the existence of a ‘pressing social need’.” See, for example, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 68416/01, 15 February 2005. Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 41