CCPR/C/GC/34 paragraph 1, of the Covenant according to which “nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant”. 22. Paragraph 3 lays down specific conditions and it is only subject to these conditions that restrictions may be imposed: the restrictions must be “provided by law”; they may only be imposed for one of the grounds set out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 3; and they must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality.42 Restrictions are not allowed on grounds not specified in paragraph 3, even if such grounds would justify restrictions to other rights protected in the Covenant. Restrictions must be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related to the specific need on which they are predicated.43 23. States parties should put in place effective measures to protect against attacks aimed at silencing those exercising their right to freedom of expression. Paragraph 3 may never be invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multi-party democracy, democratic tenets and human rights. 44 Nor, under any circumstance, can an attack on a person, because of the exercise of his or her freedom of opinion or expression, including such forms of attack as arbitrary arrest, torture, threats to life and killing, be compatible with article 19. 45 Journalists are frequently subjected to such threats, intimidation and attacks because of their activities.46 So too are persons who engage in the gathering and analysis of information on the human rights situation and who publish human rights-related reports, including judges and lawyers.47 All such attacks should be vigorously investigated in a timely fashion, and the perpetrators prosecuted,48 and the victims, or, in the case of killings, their representatives, be in receipt of appropriate forms of redress. 49 24. Restrictions must be provided by law. Law may include laws of parliamentary privilege50 and laws of contempt of court.51 Since any restriction on freedom of expression constitutes a serious curtailment of human rights, it is not compatible with the Covenant for a restriction to be enshrined in traditional, religious or other such customary law.52 25. For the purposes of paragraph 3, a norm, to be characterized as a “law”, must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly53 and it must be made accessible to the public. A law may not confer unfettered discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution. 54 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 6 See communication No. 1022/2001, Velichkin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 20 October 2005. See the Committee’s general comment No. 22, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortyeighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/48/40), annex VI See communication No. 458/91, Mukong v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 21 July 1994. See communication No. 1353/2005, Njaru v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 19 March 2007. See, for instance, concluding observations on Algeria (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3); concluding observations on Costa Rica (CCPR/C/CRI/CO/5); concluding observations on Sudan (CCPR/C/SDN/CO/3). See communication No. 1353/2005, Njaru v. Cameroon ; concluding observations on Nicaragua (CCPR/C/NIC/CO/3); concluding observations on Tunisia (CCPR/C/TUN/CO/5); concluding observations on the Syrian Arab Republic (CCPR/CO/84/SYR); concluding observations on Colombia (CCPR/CO/80/COL). Ibid. and concluding observations on Georgia (CCPR/C/GEO/CO/3). Concluding observations on Guyana (CCPR/C/79/Add.121). See communication No. 633/95, Gauthier v. Canada. See communication No. 1373/2005, Dissanayake v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 22 July 2008. See general comment No. 32. See communication No. 578/1994, de Groot v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 July 1995. See general comment No. 27.