Assessing Damage, Urging Action Those who devised the modern human rights system were idealists, no doubt, but they were also pragmatic. From the outset, those involved recognised that the enjoyment of most rights might need to be limited from time to time for different reasons, not least on occasion to respect the rights and freedoms of others. However, those who developed the modern human rights system went further and recognised that some rights might need to be suspended in situations of genuine emergency. The international legal framework recognises firstly that few rights are absolute. Even outside of emergency situations, democratic societies accept that fundamental principles such as the freedom of movement, of expression, of association, must be protected by law, but also are subject to daily accommodation between individuals with competing interests. Conflicts of rights between individuals and groups are eventually a matter for adjudication by the courts. These rights, the restrictions on them, and the criteria to be applied in determining how rights can be restricted, are all laid down clearly in international law. For example, Article 29 of the UDHR declares that individuals have duties to the wider community and that limitations to individual rights must be “determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare”. Since the passage of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, further texts (most specifically the two universal covenants17) and extensive jurisprudence at national, regional and international levels has interpreted the proper meaning to be accorded to the concepts of legality, necessity, and proportionality that are implicit in this standard. Furthermore, the human rights framework explicitly recognises that there may be emergencies, and that States must have the necessary freedom of manoeuvre so that, in the face of extreme danger, they can act promptly and effectively in the best interests of society as a whole. Human rights treaties envisage the possibility that some rights may be formally suspended in times of a legitimate emergency. Yet the framers of these treaties also determined that there could be no carte blanche for States. If they could individually determine what constituted an emergency, how long the emergency lasted, which rights could be suspended indefinitely, and whose rights could be infringed, then the other protections on offer would be nugatory. Accordingly, when an emergency arises, States may register their intention to derogate from particular human rights provisions. To derogate, the State in question must formally explain to the international community the exceptional nature of the emergency; the derogation must be of a temporary nature; and specific legal measures, safeguards, and reporting systems come into play.18 17 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). 18 See Report of the Independent Expert on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/103, 17 February 2005, para. 12, stating that: “The jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee and regional supervisory bodies indicates that derogations are always 19