for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR).67 In no way should rights and fundamental principles that are qualified as absolute be restricted. 52. Article 17 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders provides that “[i]n the exercise of the rights and freedoms referred to in the present Declaration, everyone, acting individually and in association with others, shall be subject only to such limitations as are in accordance with applicable international obligations and are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” 53. Any restrictions on the rights that allow for the imposition of such limitations must strictly meet all of the following requirements: a)  They must be prescribed by law; b)  They must pursue a legitimate aim in conformity with the specific permissible grounds of limitations set out in the relevant international standards; and c)  They must be necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aim pursued.68 54. The conditions for any limitation on the exercise of the rights that allow for the imposition of such limitations are cumulative;69 in other words, they have to strictly meet all of the requirements concerning legality, permissible grounds, necessity and proportionality. States should always be guided by the principle that 67  Concerning the right to private and family life, the corresponding provision in the ICCPR (Article 17 ­ICCPR), does not contain a separate limitation clause, since it provides protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with one’s privacy, family, home or correspondence, as well as unlawful attacks on one’s honour and reputation. As set out in the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment on Article 17, the term “unlawful” means that no interference can take place except in cases envisaged by the law, which itself must comply with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant. As regards the term “arbitrary interference”, the concept of arbitrariness is intended to guarantee that even interference provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances (see UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No.16, adopted on 23 March 1988, paras. 4 and 5). In other words, the requirements the Human Rights Committee applies to the right to private life concerning the permissibility of interferences are similar to those concerning permissible limitations to Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the ICCPR. See also the section on the Right to private life below. Article 11 of the ACHR is worded in a similar way as Article 17 of the ICCPR and also does not, therefore, contain a separate limitation clause. 68  See, for example, UN Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 34, Article 19, “Freedoms of opinion and expression”, 12 September 2011, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 22, concerning the requirements for limitations to freedom of expression in accordance with Article 19(3) of the ICCPR. In line with relevant international human rights standards UN Human Rights Council Resolution 22/6 calls upon States to ensure that “[a]ny provision or decision that may interfere with the enjoyment of human rights respects the fundamental principles enshrined in international law so that they are lawful, proportionate, non-discriminatory and necessary in a democratic society” (para. 11(d)). 69  See “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association”, UN Doc. A/HRC/23/39, 23 April 2013, para. 19. 40 Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders