the specific context of the present communication, the Human Rights Committee is of the opinion that a State, by merely invoking the existence of exceptional circumstances, cannot evade the obligations which it has undertaken by ratifying the Covenant. --Landinelli Silva v. Uruguay, Case No. 34/1978, Views adopted on 8 April 1981 (para. 8.2). ***** In the specific context of [this] communication there is no information to show that article 14(5) was derogated from in accordance with article 4 of the Covenant; therefore the Committee is of the view that the State party, by merely invoking the existence or a state of siege, cannot evade the obligations which it has undertaken by ratifying the Covenant. Although the substantive right to take derogatory measures may not depend on a formal notification being made pursuant to article 4(3) of the Covenant, the State party concerned is on duty bound, when it invokes article 4 (l) of the covenant in proceedings under the Optional Protocol, to give a sufficiently detailed account of the relevant facts to show that a situation of the kind described in article 4 (l) of the Covenant exists in the country concerned. --Salgar de Montejo v. Colombia, Case No. 64/1979, Views adopted on 24 March 1985 (para. 10.3). Non-derogable rights The Committee is concerned that the Law on Public Emergency in the … Republic does not specifically restrict the power of derogation from specific Covenant provisions, as stipulated in article 4 of the Covenant. The State party should take measures to bring its Law on Public Emergency into compliance with article 4 of the Covenant. --CCPR/CO/69/KGZ, para. 12 (2000). ***** The Committee reiterates its concern over the constitutional provisions relating to the declaration of a state of emergency. In particular, the Committee notes that the grounds for declaring an emergency are too broad and that the range of rights which may be derogated from does not conform with article 4 of the Covenant. Additionally, the Constitution fails to make reference to non-derogable rights. The Committee reiterates its observations on [the State party’s] third periodic report, that the State party restrict its provisions relating to the possibilities of declaring a state of emergency, and constitutionally specify those Covenant rights which are non-derogable. 21