grounds of national security. “When limitations are deemed absolutely necessary, the State has the burden of proof in demonstrating that the exceptions are compatible with international human rights law. Information regarding other violations of human rights must be subject to a high presumption of disclosure and, in any event, may not be withheld on national security grounds in a manner that would prevent accountability, or deprive a victim of access to an effective remedy.”209 Likewise, PACE has reaffirmed that “information concerning the responsibility of State agents who have committed serious human rights violations such as murder, enforced disappearance, torture or abduction does not deserve to be protected as secret. Such information should not be shielded from judicial or parliamentary scrutiny under the guise of “state secrecy”, and that “[i]nformation about serious violations of human rights or humanitarian law should not be withheld on national security grounds in any circumstances.”210 149. PACE has also called on states to review their legislation concerning the protection of whistleblowers, while noting, among other things, that whistleblowing legislation should be comprehensive and should focus on providing a safe alternative to silence.211 Similarly, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression have all called for the protection of whistleblowers against legal, administrative or employment-related sanctions if they act in “good faith” when releasing information on violations of the law, on wrongdoing by public bodies, on a serious threat to health, safety or the environment, or on a breach of human rights or humanitarian law.212 They have stated that the term “whistleblower” includes those releasing confidential or secret information on such matters despite being under an official or other obligation to maintain confidentiality or secrecy. While noting that government officials or persons with a connection to the state who have a legal obligation to ensure confidentiality (i.e., whistleblowers) should be afforded such protection, the UN Special Rapporteur has also stated that other individuals, including journalists, other media personnel and civil society representatives who receive, possess or disseminate classified information because they believe it is in 209  A/68/362, para. 106. 210  See Resolution 1954 (2013), paras. 6 and 9.6. 211  PACE Resolution 1729 (2010), “Protection of ‘whistle-blowers’”, adopted on 29 April 2010, paras. 6.1 and 6.2. According to PACE, such legislation should protect anyone who, in good faith, makes use of existing internal whistleblowing channels from any form of retaliation (including unfair dismissal, harassment or any other punitive or discriminatory treatment). Where such internal channels do not exist or are not effective, external whistleblowing, including through the media, should likewise be protected. Setting out principles guiding the design and implementation of national laws on access to information, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression specifically recalled that national laws on the right to information should provide protection for whistleblowers. See A/68/362, para. 76 (i). 212  See “International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression, Joint Declaration by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression”, 6 December 2004, <http://www.osce.org/fom/38632>. 74 Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders