CCPR/C/GC/34 Laws must provide sufficient guidance to those charged with their execution to enable them to ascertain what sorts of expression are properly restricted and what sorts are not. 26. Laws restricting the rights enumerated in article 19, paragraph 2, including the laws referred to in paragraph 24, must not only comply with the strict requirements of article 19, paragraph 3 of the Covenant but must also themselves be compatible with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant. 55 Laws must not violate the non-discrimination provisions of the Covenant. Laws must not provide for penalties that are incompatible with the Covenant, such as corporal punishment.56 27. It is for the State party to demonstrate the legal basis for any restrictions imposed on freedom of expression. 57 If, with regard to a particular State party, the Committee has to consider whether a particular restriction is imposed by law, the State party should provide details of the law and of actions that fall within the scope of the law. 58 28. The first of the legitimate grounds for restriction listed in paragraph 3 is that of respect for the rights or reputations of others. The term “rights” includes human rights as recognized in the Covenant and more generally in international human rights law. For example, it may be legitimate to restrict freedom of expression in order to protect the right to vote under article 25, as well as rights article under 17 (see para. 37).59 Such restrictions must be constructed with care: while it may be permissible to protect voters from forms of expression that constitute intimidation or coercion, such restrictions must not impede political debate, including, for example, calls for the boycotting of a non-compulsory vote. 60 The term “others” relates to other persons individually or as members of a community. 61 Thus, it may, for instance, refer to individual members of a community defined by its religious faith62 or ethnicity.63 29. The second legitimate ground is that of protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. 30. Extreme care must be taken by States parties to ensure that treason laws 64 and similar provisions relating to national security, whether described as official secrets or sedition laws or otherwise, are crafted and applied in a manner that conforms to the strict requirements of paragraph 3. It is not compatible with paragraph 3, for instance, to invoke such laws to suppress or withhold from the public information of legitimate public interest that does not harm national security or to prosecute journalists, researchers, environmental activists, human rights defenders, or others, for having disseminated such information. 65 Nor is it generally appropriate to include in the remit of such laws such categories of information as those relating to the commercial sector, banking and scientific progress. 66 The Committee has found in one case that a restriction on the issuing of a statement in 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 y 66 See communication No. 488/1992, Toonen v. Australia, Views adopted on 30 March 1994. General comment No. 20, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/47/40), annex VI, sect. A. See communication No. 1553/2007, Korneenko et al. v. Belarus, Views adopted on 31 October 2006. See communication No. 132/1982, Jaona v. Madagascar, Views adopted on 1 April 1985. See communication No. 927/2000, Svetik v. Belarus, Views adopted on 8 July 2004. Ibid. See communication No. 736/97, Ross v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 October 2000. See communication No. 550/93, Faurisson v. France; concluding observations on Austria (CCPR/C/AUT/CO/4). Concluding observations on Slovakia (CCPR/CO/78/SVK); concluding observations on Israel (CCPR/CO/78/ISR). Concluding observations on Hong Kong (CCPR/C/HKG/CO/2). Concluding observations on the Russian Federation (CCPR/CO/79/RUS). Concluding observations on Uzbekistan (CCPR/CO/71/UZB). 7