I. Right to political participation and freedom of expression, opinion and assembly States may derogate from these freedoms in times of emergency that threaten the life of the nation, provided that they follow the specific requirements pertaining to declaration of the emergency. They also may limit these freedoms in the absence of an emergency for specific reasons mentioned in each relevant human rights treaty. There are, however, conditions that must be met as specified below. United Nations [E]ven on the assumption that there exists a situation of emergency in Uruguay, the Human Rights Committee does not see what ground could be adduced to support the contention that, in order to restore peace and order, it was necessary to deprive all citizens, who as members of certain political groups had been candidates in the elections of 1966 and 1971, of any political right for a period as long as 15 years. This measure applies to everyone, without distinction as to whether he sought to promote his political opinions by peaceful means or by resorting to, or advocating the use of, violent means. The Government of Uruguay has failed to show that the interdiction of any kind of political dissent is required in order to deal with the alleged emergency situation and pave the way back to political freedom. […] The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that, by prohibiting the authors of the communication from engaging in any kind of political activity for a period as long as 15 years, the State party has unreasonably restricted their rights under article 25 of the Covenant. --Landinelli Silva v. Uruguay, Case No. 34/1978, Views adopted on 8 April 1981 (para. 8.4). ***** In the case Kim v. Republic of Korea, the Human Rights Committee examined a conviction under the “National Security Law” for expressing opinion sympathetic to an “anti-State organization” linked with North Korea: The Committee notes that the author was convicted for having read out and distributed printed materials which were seen as coinciding with the policy statements of the DPRK (North Korea), with which country the State party was in a state of war. He was convicted by the courts on the basis of a finding that he had done this with the intention of siding with the activities of the DPRK. The Supreme Court held that the mere knowledge that the activity could be of benefit to North Korea was sufficient to establish guilt. Even taking that matter into account, the Committee has to consider whether the author’s political speech and his distribution of political documents were of a nature to attract the 70