Justice

Is there one proportionality test that legal systems apply?

No. The two treaties most often cited for the doctrine never use the word, three constitutions state its components without naming it, and Switzerland uses it twice in two different jobs — once for restrictions on rights, once for every act of the state.

Fact-checkedSafety review clearedLast updated 5 September 2026Last reviewed 5 September 2026

In short

Proportionality is the idea that a measure must not cost more than its purpose is worth — that the state should not use a heavier instrument where a lighter one would do, and should not pursue a real objective by means out of all relation to it.

AnalysisIt is often described as though there were a single test, applied everywhere in the same steps. The texts do not support that. Some constitutions use the word and leave it undefined; some spell out components and never use the word; and the two treaties most often invoked for the doctrine do not contain it at all.

Why it exists

AnalysisThe problem proportionality answers appears the moment a state has a power it may use in more than one way. A legal basis tells an official that they may act. A legitimate purpose tells them why. Neither tells them how much.

AnalysisThat gap is where most complaints about public authority actually live. The objection is rarely that the state had no business acting at all; it is that it went further than it needed to, or reached for the most severe option first. Proportionality is the name for the requirement that the answer to "how much" be defensible.

How it works

Switzerland is the clearest case, and it is clear in an unexpected way: the Bundesverfassung contains proportionality twice, in two provisions doing two different jobs. Article 36(3) provides that restrictions on fundamental rights must be proportionate. Article 5(2), in the rule-of-law article at the front of the constitution, provides something wider — "Staatliches Handeln muss im öffentlichen Interesse liegen und verhältnismässig sein": state action must be in the public interest and proportionate.

South Africa — the components, without the word: Section 36(1) does not use "proportionate". It requires a limitation to be reasonable and justifiable, taking into account the nature of the right, the importance of the purpose of the limitation, the nature and extent of the limitation, the relation between the limitation and its purpose, and less restrictive means to achieve the purpose. Those last three are the components a proportionality analysis is usually said to have.
Kenya — the same components, with the necessity limb attached to the same factor: Article 24(1)(e) states as one factor "the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose". Kenya keeps the fit question and the necessity question in a single clause rather than as separate steps.
Germany — the word appears, but narrowly: The Grundgesetz uses a proportionality term in Article 13(3), and it uses it as a threshold for one investigative measure: acoustic surveillance of a home is available only where alternative methods of investigating the matter "would be disproportionately difficult or unproductive". That is proportionality doing a specific job in a specific place, not a general clause.
Czechia — proportionality’s work done by other words: Article 4(4) of the Listina requires the essence and significance of a right to be preserved and forbids limitations being "misused for purposes other than those for which they were enacted". Article 12(3) permits encroachments on the dwelling beyond a criminal search only where "necessary in a democratic society" for listed purposes.

The European Convention is where the assumption of a universal test is most often formed, and its text is where the assumption fails. The word "proportion", in any form, occurs nowhere in the Convention. Article 8(2) requires an interference to be "in accordance with the law" and "necessary in a democratic society" for one of a closed list of aims; Article 11(2) has the same structure. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not contain the word either.

Canada shows the third possibility. Section 1 of the Charter permits "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society", and stops. The text contains neither the word proportionality nor any of the components South Africa and Kenya enumerate.

Common misconceptions

Widely held beliefs that do not match how the system actually operates.

Common belief: Proportionality is a single test with a fixed number of steps.
In practice: Switzerland states it in one word and leaves the content open; South Africa and Kenya enumerate components without using the word; the European Convention and the Covenant do not contain the word at all; Canada’s section 1 states neither the word nor the components.
Common belief: Proportionality comes from the European Convention on Human Rights.
In practice: The word "proportion", in any form, occurs zero times in the Convention text. What the Convention states is "necessary in a democratic society", coupled with a closed list of legitimate aims for each qualified right.
This is a statement about the treaty text. It says nothing about the case law, which was not researched here.
Common belief: Necessity and proportionality are the same requirement.
In practice: The texts separate them where they state both. South Africa asks about "the relation between the limitation and its purpose" and, as a distinct factor, "less restrictive means to achieve the purpose". The European Convention asks whether an interference is necessary in a democratic society, and does not ask about proportion at all.
Where a text states only one of the two, this page does not supply the other.
Common belief: Proportionality only matters when a right is at stake.
In practice: Article 5(2) of the Swiss Bundesverfassung requires all state action to be in the public interest and proportionate. It sits in the rule-of-law article, not in the fundamental-rights chapter, and it is not conditioned on a right being engaged.
Common belief: A proportionate measure is a mild one.
In practice: Proportionality relates a measure to its purpose. A severe measure serving a sufficiently weighty purpose, where nothing lighter would achieve it, is what these clauses are designed to permit — which is why they are the mechanism by which coercive powers are exercised rather than an obstacle to exercising them.
Whether any particular measure meets that description is a question for a court, not for this page.
Common belief: If a country’s constitution does not use the word, its law has no proportionality doctrine.
In practice: The absence of a word from a text is a fact about the text. This page records where the word appears and where it does not, and makes no claim about the doctrine of any system whose case law it did not read.

How this varies between jurisdictions

A required section on every guide. Arrangements differ between countries, and we say how.

Where the idea lives differs, and so does how much of it is written down.

Named twice, for two different jobs — Switzerland: BV Art. 36(3) for restrictions on rights, BV Art. 5(2) for all state action.
Components enumerated, word absent — South Africa, s. 36(1)(c)–(e); Kenya, Art. 24(1)(c) and (e).
Named once, as a threshold for a single investigative measure — Germany, GG Art. 13(3).
Reached through "necessary in a democratic society" and a closed list of aims — European Convention, Arts. 8(2) and 11(2); Czechia, Listina Art. 12(3), which imports the same formula for one right.
Neither word nor components in the text — Canada, Charter s. 1; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Rights and accountability

AnalysisOne area of the corpus already turns on necessity and proportionality, and it is worth separating from this page. International policing instruments state that force must satisfy necessity, proportionality and precaution — a framework about how an official may act in a moment, applied afterwards to a specific incident. That is described at police use of force.

Kenya states the burden expressly. Article 24(3) provides that the State or a person seeking to justify a particular limitation shall demonstrate to the court, tribunal or other authority that the requirements of the Article have been satisfied.

AnalysisWhat that gives an accountability system is a question that can be put to an institution and answered with evidence: what else was available, and why was this chosen. A requirement that produces a record of the alternatives considered is worth more to review than a requirement that produces a conclusion.

What we could not establish

The statements that the word "proportionality" does not appear in the European Convention or the Covenant are statements about those texts. Both bodies of case law use the concept extensively, and neither was researched here.
No court’s formulation of a proportionality test is described. Where a system’s doctrine is judicial rather than textual, this page says only what the text contains.

Where to go next

If a right is written into a constitution, can the government still restrict it?
In most systems, yes — and the constitution usually says how. Six different architectures do this job, from one general clause with five named factors to no general clause at all, and three constitutions using nearly identical words mean measurably different things by them.
What limits does law place on what the state may do to a person?
Four recurring limits appear in constitutional text: an act must have a legal basis that existed beforehand, the person must be heard, the decision must be capable of review, and some things may not be done at all.
When may police use force, and what limits apply?
Force is the most consequential thing an enforcement body does. This guide explains the international principles that govern it — necessity, proportionality and precaution — and why the limits are part of the power rather than an exception to it.
Why does it matter that people can know where they stand in law?
Because a rule you cannot find, cannot understand, or that can be changed against you afterwards cannot guide anything. Constitutions protect settled positions directly — vested rights, completed acts, and decisions that have become final.

Sources

Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999 (SR 101)
Swiss Confederation — Fedlex (fedlex.admin.ch) · Legislation · 1999-04-18 · link verified 2026-07-26
The Federal Constitution, read in full from the official fedlex text (English is a non-authoritative translation; German, French and Italian are equally authentic). Supports: art. 1 (the Confederation of the People and the 26 Cantons); art. 3, 'The Cantons are sovereign except to the extent that their sovereignty is limited by the Federal Constitution. They exercise all rights that are not vested in the Confederation' — residual power with the CANTONS (like the United States and Australia); art. 46 (the Cantons implement federal law — executive federalism); art. 122 (the Confederation legislates civil law, but 'the Cantons are responsible for the organisation of the courts and the administration of justice in civil matters'); art. 123 ('The Confederation is responsible for legislation in the field of criminal law and the law of criminal procedure', while 'the Cantons are responsible for the organisation of the courts, the administration of justice in criminal cases as well as for the execution of penalties and measures') — so the law is federal and unified but the administration, including corrections, is cantonal; art. 188 (the Federal Supreme Court as the supreme judicial authority); art. 48 (inter-cantonal treaties, the basis for the corrections concordats); art. 70 (German, French and Italian as official languages); and the direct-democracy provisions (arts. 138-142: popular initiative, mandatory and optional referendums). WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same consolidated Fedlex text in German, with the official English rendering consulted alongside. Supports Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft (SR 101), Art. 185: “Art. 185 Äussere und innere Sicherheit. 1 Der Bundesrat trifft Massnahmen zur Wahrung der äusseren Sicherheit, der Unabhängigkeit und der Neutralität der Schweiz. 2 Er trifft Massnahmen zur Wahrung der inneren Sicherheit. 3 Er kann, unmittelbar gestützt auf diesen Artikel, Verordnungen und Verfügungen erlassen, um eingetretenen oder unmittelbar drohenden schweren Störungen der öffentlichen Ordnung oder der inneren oder äusseren Sicherheit zu begegnen. Solche Verordnungen sind zu befristen. 4 In dringlichen Fällen kann er Truppen aufbieten. Bietet er mehr als 4000 Angehörige der Armee für den Aktivdienst auf oder dauert dieser Einsatz voraussichtlich länger als drei Wochen, so ist unverzüglich die Bundesversammlung einzuberufen.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Art. 173(1)(a)-(d): “Art. 173 Weitere Aufgaben und Befugnisse. 1 Die Bundesversammlung hat zudem folgende Aufgaben und Befugnisse: a. Sie trifft Massnahmen zur Wahrung der äusseren Sicherheit, der Unabhängigkeit und der Neutralität der Schweiz. b. Sie trifft Massnahmen zur Wahrung der inneren Sicherheit. c. Wenn ausserordentliche Umstände es erfordern, kann sie zur Erfüllung der Aufgaben nach den Buchstaben a und b Verordnungen oder einfache Bundesbeschlüsse erlassen. d. Sie ordnet den Aktivdienst an und bietet dafür die Armee oder Teile davon auf.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Art. 36(4): “4 Der Kerngehalt der Grundrechte ist unantastbar.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Arts. 189(4) and 190: “Art. 189 [...] 4 Akte der Bundesversammlung und des Bundesrates können beim Bundesgericht nicht angefochten werden. Ausnahmen bestimmt das Gesetz. [...] Art. 190 Massgebendes Recht. Bundesgesetze und Völkerrecht sind für das Bundesgericht und die anderen rechtsanwendenden Behörden massgebend.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Art. 58(2)-(3), read with Arts. 173(1)(d) and 185(4): “Art. 58 Armee. [...] 2 Die Armee dient der Kriegsverhinderung und trägt bei zur Erhaltung des Friedens; sie verteidigt das Land und seine Bevölkerung. Sie unterstützt die zivilen Behörden bei der Abwehr schwerwiegender Bedrohungen der inneren Sicherheit und bei der Bewältigung anderer ausserordentlicher Lagen. Das Gesetz kann weitere Aufgaben vorsehen. 3 Der Einsatz der Armee ist Sache des Bundes.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Art. 61; cf. Art. 102 (Landesversorgung: "Der Bund stellt die Versorgung des Landes mit lebenswichtigen Gütern und Dienstleistungen sicher für den Fall machtpolitischer oder kriegerischer Bedrohungen sowie in schweren Mangellagen, denen die Wirtschaft nicht selbst zu begegnen vermag."): “Art. 61 Zivilschutz. 1 Die Gesetzgebung über den zivilen Schutz von Personen und Gütern vor den Auswirkungen bewaffneter Konflikte ist Sache des Bundes. 2 Der Bund erlässt Vorschriften über den Einsatz des Zivilschutzes bei Katastrophen und in Notlagen. 3 Er kann den Schutzdienst für Männer obligatorisch erklären. Für Frauen ist dieser freiwillig.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Arts. 3, 5a and 57: “Art. 3 Kantone. Die Kantone sind souverän, soweit ihre Souveränität nicht durch die Bundesverfassung beschränkt ist; sie üben alle Rechte aus, die nicht dem Bund übertragen sind. [...] Art. 5a Subsidiarität. Bei der Zuweisung und Erfüllung staatlicher Aufgaben ist der Grundsatz der Subsidiarität zu beachten. [...] Art. 57 Sicherheit. 1 Bund und Kantone sorgen im Rahmen ihrer Zuständigkeiten für die Sicherheit des Landes und den Schutz der Bevölkerung. 2 Sie koordinieren ihre Anstrengungen im Bereich der inneren Sicherheit.”. Cited for the finding that Switzerland protects a CORE CONTENT of every fundamental right rather than listing non-derogable rights, that its civil protection is constitutionally split between armed-conflict protection and disaster deployment, and that review of federal acts is structurally constrained. It records no ordinance, states no cantonal arrangement, and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read from the consolidated Fedlex text of 3 March 2024 in both the authoritative German and the official English rendering, article by article. Supports Art. 5 “Grundsätze rechtsstaatlichen Handelns”: “1 Grundlage und Schranke staatlichen Handelns ist das Recht. 2 Staatliches Handeln muss im öffentlichen Interesse liegen und verhältnismässig sein. 3 Staatliche Organe und Private handeln nach Treu und Glauben. 4 Bund und Kantone beachten das Völkerrecht.” — note that Art. 5(2) requires ALL state activity to be proportionate, which is a different provision doing a different job from Art. 36(3). Supports Art. 36 in full: “1 Einschränkungen von Grundrechten bedürfen einer gesetzlichen Grundlage. Schwerwiegende Einschränkungen müssen im Gesetz selbst vorgesehen sein. Ausgenommen sind Fälle ernster, unmittelbarer und nicht anders abwendbarer Gefahr. 2 Einschränkungen von Grundrechten müssen durch ein öffentliches Interesse oder durch den Schutz von Grundrechten Dritter gerechtfertigt sein. 3 Einschränkungen von Grundrechten müssen verhältnismässig sein. 4 Der Kerngehalt der Grundrechte ist unantastbar.” Supports Art. 13 “Schutz der Privatsphäre”: “1 Jede Person hat Anspruch auf Achtung ihres Privat- und Familienlebens, ihrer Wohnung sowie ihres Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldeverkehrs. 2 Jede Person hat Anspruch auf Schutz vor Missbrauch ihrer persönlichen Daten.” — one provision covering private and family life, the home, and mail and telecommunications together. Supports Art. 10(2), that every person has the right to personal liberty and in particular to physical and mental integrity and to freedom of movement. Supports Art. 31 “Freiheitsentzug” in full, including 31(2) (notification without delay, in a language the person understands, of the reasons and of their rights, with the opportunity to exercise them and in particular to have next-of-kin informed), 31(3) (a person in pre-trial detention has the right to be brought before a court without delay, which decides on continued detention or release, and to have their case decided within a reasonable time) and 31(4) (a person deprived of liberty by a body other than a court has the right of recourse to a court at any time, which decides as quickly as possible on the legality of the detention). Supports Art. 32(1)-(3) (presumption of innocence until a legally enforceable judgment; notification of the charge as quickly and comprehensively as possible with the opportunity to assert defence rights; review of a conviction by a higher court save where the Federal Supreme Court sits at first instance). Supports Art. 35 “Verwirklichung der Grundrechte”: fundamental rights must be upheld throughout the legal system; whoever acts on behalf of the state is bound by them and under a duty to contribute to their implementation; and the authorities shall ensure that fundamental rights, where appropriate, apply to relationships among private persons. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that the rights read here are worded “Jede Person” / “Every person” rather than for Swiss citizens. English is a non-authoritative translation; German, French and Italian are equally authentic. This record establishes constitutional TEXT only — no decision of the Bundesgericht, no cantonal arrangement, and nothing about any other country.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Government of South Africa (gov.za) · Legislation · 1996 · link verified 2026-07-27
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (in force 4 February 1997), fetched from the official gov.za chapters and schedules and confirmed verbatim in two independent passes. Supports s 1(c) and s 2 (constitutional supremacy — "This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid"); s 165 (judicial authority vested in independent courts); s 166 (the courts: the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Magistrates' Courts); s 167(3) (the Constitutional Court is "the highest court of the Republic", the apex for all matters since the Seventeenth Amendment); s 178 (the Judicial Service Commission); s 179 (a "single national prosecuting authority", headed by the National Director appointed by the President, exercising its functions without fear, favour or prejudice, with the Justice Minister exercising "final responsibility"); s 181 (the Chapter 9 institutions — the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission and others); s 205–207 (a single national police service, the Minister determining national policing policy, the National Commissioner controlling the service, provinces limited to oversight); and Schedules 4 and 5 (which contain no provincial competence over courts, prosecution, prisons or criminal law, only police "to the extent that Chapter 11 confers"). Establishes constitutional supremacy and that all four justice functions are national. WAVE 12 ADDITION, read from the clean digital text published by the Department of Justice at justice.gov.za and corroborated against the gov.za chapter pages: s 9(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law; s 33(1) Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, s 33(2) written reasons where rights have been adversely affected, s 33(3) national legislation providing for review by a court or independent and impartial tribunal; s 34 Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum; s 35(2)(b) the right of a detained person to choose and consult a legal practitioner, s 35(2)(c) the right to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, s 35(2)(d) to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before a court, and s 35(2)(e) to conditions of detention consistent with human dignity, including at least exercise and the provision, at state expense, of adequate accommodation, nutrition, reading material and medical treatment. ACCESS NOTE: the scanned gazette PDF at gov.za/sites/default/files/images/a108-96.pdf is an OCR with visible corruption and was rejected as a source; nothing is quoted from it. WAVE 14 ADDITION, read from the same Department of Justice chapter text: s 35(3)(f) the right of every accused person to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly; s 35(3)(g) to have a legal practitioner assigned by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly; s 35(3)(k) “to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language”; and s 35(4) that whenever the section requires information to be given to a person, that information must be given in a language that the person understands. WAVE 19 ADDITION, read from the same Department of Justice chapter text: s 35(5) in full — "Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice." As with the Kenyan provision, exclusion is conditional on the effect of admission rather than automatic on the violation. Also read directly from the same chapter text, the whole of s 35(2)(d) and its chapeau: "Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right u2014 u2026 (d) to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and, if the detention is unlawful, to be released". Three features of that provision are cited on this platform and each is in the text itself: that the right extends to sentenced prisoners, that the challenge is made in person before a court, and that release is the stated remedy. The provision states no procedure for bringing such a challenge and no time limit, and this record supports no claim about either. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same Department of Justice chapter text. Section 37 is the most fully specified emergency clause in this wave, and its detail is the finding. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(1): “37. (1) A state of emergency may be declared only in terms of an Act of Parliament, and only when— (a) the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; and (b) the declaration is necessary to restore peace and order.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(2)(b): “The Assembly may extend a declaration of a state of emergency for no more than three months at a time. The first extension of the state of emergency must be by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of a majority of the members of the Assembly. Any subsequent extension must be by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of at least 60 per cent of the members of the Assembly. A resolution in terms of this paragraph may be adopted only following a public debate in the Assembly.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(3): “(3) Any competent court may decide on the validity of— (a) a declaration of a state of emergency; (b) any extension of a declaration of a state of emergency; or (c) any legislation enacted, or other action taken, in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(4): “(4) Any legislation enacted in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency may derogate from the Bill of Rights only to the extent that— (a) the derogation is strictly required by the emergency; and (b) the legislation— (i) is consistent with the Republic’s obligations under international law applicable to states of emergency; (ii) conforms to subsection (5); and (iii) is published in the national Government Gazette as soon as reasonably possible after being enacted.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(5) and the Table of Non-Derogable Rights: “(5) No Act of Parliament that authorises a declaration of a state of emergency, and no legislation enacted or other action taken in consequence of a declaration, may permit or authorise— (a) indemnifying the state, or any person, in respect of any unlawful act; (b) any derogation from this section; or (c) any derogation from a section mentioned in column 1 of the Table of Non-Derogable Rights, to the extent indicated opposite that section in column 3 of the Table. Table of Non-Derogable Rights [1 Section number | 2 Section title | 3 Extent to which the right is protected] 9 | Equality | With respect to unfair discrimination solely on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or social origin, sex, religion or language. 10 | Human Dignity | Entirely 11 | Life | Entirely 12 | Freedom and Security of the person | With respect to subsections (1)(d) and (e) and (2)(c). 13 | Slavery, servitude and forced labour | With respect to slavery and servitude 28 | Children | With respect to: – subsection (1)(d) and (e); – the rights in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (1)(g); and – subsection 1(i) in respect of children of 15 years and younger. 35 | Arrested, detained and accused persons | With respect to: – subsections (1)(a), (b) and (c) and (2)(d); – the rights in paragraphs (a) to (o) of subsection (3), excluding paragraph (d) – subsection (4); and – subsection (5) with respect to the exclusion of evidence if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(6)-(8): “(6) Whenever anyone is detained without trial in consequence of a derogation of rights resulting from a declaration of a state of emergency, the following conditions must be observed: (a) An adult family member or friend of the detainee must be contacted as soon as reasonably possible, and informed that the person has been detained. (b) A notice must be published in the national Government Gazette within five days of the person being detained, stating the detainee’s name and place of detention and referring to the emergency measure in terms of which that person has been detained. (c) The detainee must be allowed to choose, and be visited at any reasonable time by, a medical practitioner. (d) The detainee must be allowed to choose, and be visited at any reasonable time by, a legal representative. (e) A court must review the detention as soon as reasonably possible, but no later than 10 days after the date the person was detained, and the court must release the detainee unless it is necessary to continue the detention to restore peace and order. ... (7) If a court releases a detainee, that person may not be detained again on the same grounds unless the state first shows a court good cause for re-detaining that person. (8) Subsections (6) and (7) do not apply to persons who are not South African citizens and who are detained in consequence of an international armed conflict. Instead, the state must comply with the standards binding on the Republic under international humanitarian law in respect of the detention of such persons.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.36: “36. (1) The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including— (a) the nature of the right; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and (e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose. (2) Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.201; cf. ss.198(d), 199(6): “201. (1) A member of the Cabinet must be responsible for defence. (2) Only the President, as head of the national executive, may authorise the employment of the defence force— (a) in co-operation with the police service; (b) in defence of the Republic; or (c) in fulfilment of an international obligation. (3) When the defence force is employed for any purpose mentioned in subsection (2), the President must inform Parliament, promptly and in appropriate detail, of— (a) the reasons for the employment of the defence force; (b) any place where the force is being employed; (c) the number of people involved; and (d) the period for which the force is expected to be employed. (4) If Parliament does not sit during the first seven days after the defence force is employed as envisaged in subsection (2), the President must provide the information required in subsection (3) to the appropriate oversight committee.”. Cited for prospective-only effect, the twenty-one-day limit and the escalating extension majorities, validity review by any competent court, the strictly-required test, the Table of Non-Derogable Rights, the absolute bar on indemnifying unlawful acts, and the conditions on detention without trial. It records no state of emergency ever declared under this Constitution and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Chapter 2 (Bill of Rights) read from the South African Government's own published text at gov.za. Supports s. 12(1)-(2) (freedom and security of the person, including not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause, not to be detained without trial, freedom from all forms of violence from either public or private sources, and not to be tortured or treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way; and bodily and psychological integrity, including security in and control over one's body and freedom from medical or scientific experiments without informed consent). Supports s. 14 verbatim: “Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have — (a) their person or home searched; (b) their property searched; (c) their possessions seized; or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed.” Note what this provision does NOT contain, which the page relying on it states: no warrant requirement and no authorisation rule of any kind. Supports s. 35(1) (rights of arrested persons, including (a) to remain silent; (b) to be informed promptly of the right to remain silent AND of the consequences of not remaining silent; (c) not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence; (d) to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible but not later than 48 hours after arrest, or the end of the first court day after the 48 hours expire outside ordinary court hours or on a non-court day; (e) and (f)). Supports s. 35(2) (rights of detained persons, including prompt information of the reason, choice of and consultation with a legal practitioner and prompt information of that right, state-assigned counsel where substantial injustice would otherwise result, and the right to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and be released if it is unlawful). Supports s. 35(3) (fair-trial rights, including (a) to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it; (b) adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence; (c) a public trial before an ordinary court; (h) to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings; (i) to adduce and challenge evidence; (j) not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence; (k) to be tried in a language the accused understands or to have the proceedings interpreted). Supports s. 36(1)-(2), the general limitation clause: rights may be limited “only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including — (a) the nature of the right; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and (e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose”, and that except as provided in s. 36(1) or elsewhere in the Constitution, no law may limit any entrenched right. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that ss. 12, 14 and 35 are worded “Everyone” while political rights under s. 19 are for “every citizen”. Constitutional text only: no Constitutional Court decision, no statute, and nothing about any other country.
Constitution of Kenya, 2010
National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law), for the Republic of Kenya · Legislation · 2010 · link verified 2026-07-27
The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (in force 27 August 2010), retrieved as the full official Kenya Law (National Council for Law Reporting) text and confirmed verbatim in two independent passes, including a direct read of the Fourth Schedule. Supports: Art. 1–2 (sovereignty of the people; the Constitution is supreme and any inconsistent law void); Art. 59 (the Kenya National Human Rights and Equality Commission, and 59(4) allowing legislation to restructure it into separate commissions — the hook for the KNCHR/NGEC/CAJ split, and 59(2)(h) the ombudsman-type function); Art. 156 (the Attorney-General as principal legal adviser, who does not conduct criminal prosecutions); Art. 157 (the Director of Public Prosecutions — 157(4) power to direct the Inspector-General to investigate; 157(5) a single non-renewable eight-year term; 157(10) not requiring any person's consent and not under the direction or control of any person or authority); Art. 160 (judicial independence — courts subject only to the Constitution and the law); Art. 162–163 (the superior courts and the Supreme Court as apex, bound-by rule 163(7)); Art. 165 (the High Court — 165(3)(a) unlimited original jurisdiction, 165(3)(d) jurisdiction to determine whether any law is inconsistent with the Constitution — diffuse constitutional review); Art. 170 (the Kadhis' courts, limited to Muslim personal-status matters where all parties profess Islam); Art. 171–172 (the Judicial Service Commission); Art. 243–246 (the National Police Service as one national service throughout Kenya, the two services, the Inspector-General's independent command under 245(2)(b), the direction firewall under 245(4), and the National Police Service Commission); and the Fourth Schedule Part 1 items 7 (police services, criminal law and correctional services) and 8 (courts), which place all four justice functions in the national government. Establishes constitutional supremacy and that, despite devolution to 47 counties, courts, prosecution, police and prisons are all national functions. WAVE 19 ADDITION, read from the same official Kenya Law text: Art. 50(4) in full — "Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair, or would otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice." Note the conditional structure: exclusion follows from a judgment about the effect of admitting the evidence, not automatically from the fact of the violation. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same official Kenya Law text. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(1): “58. State of emergency (1) A state of emergency may be declared only under Article 132 (4) (d) and only when— (a) the State is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; and (b) the declaration is necessary to meet the circumstances for which the emergency is declared.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 132(4)(d)-(e): “132. Functions of the President ... (4) The President may— (a) perform any other executive function provided for in this Constitution or in national legislation ...; (b) receive foreign diplomatic and consular representatives; (c) confer honours in the name of the people and the Republic; (d) subject to Article 58, declare a state of emergency; and (e) with the approval of Parliament, declare war.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(2)-(3): “(2) A declaration of a state of emergency, and any legislation enacted or other action taken in consequence of the declaration, shall be effective only— (a) prospectively; and (b) for not longer than fourteen days from the date of the declaration, unless the National Assembly resolves to extend the declaration. (3) The National Assembly may extend a declaration of a state of emergency— ... (b) for not longer than two months at a time.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(3)-(4): “(3) The National Assembly may extend a declaration of a state of emergency— (a) by resolution adopted— (i) following a public debate in the National Assembly; and (ii) by the majorities specified in clause (4); and (b) for not longer than two months at a time. (4) The first extension of the declaration of a state of emergency requires a supporting vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the National Assembly, and any subsequent extension requires a supporting vote of at least three-quarters of all the members of the National Assembly.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(5): “(5) The Supreme Court may decide on the validity of— (a) a declaration of a state of emergency; (b) any extension of a declaration of a state of emergency; and (c) any legislation enacted, or other action taken, in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(6): “(6) Any legislation enacted in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency— (a) may limit a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights only to the extent that— (i) the limitation is strictly required by the emergency; and (ii) the legislation is consistent with the Republic’s obligations under international law applicable to a state of emergency; and (b) shall not take effect until it is published in the Gazette .”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 25: “25. Fundamental Rights and freedoms that may not be limited Despite any other provision in this Constitution, the following rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be limited— (a) freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) freedom from slavery or servitude; (c) the right to a fair trial; and (d) the right to an order of habeas corpus .”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 241(3); cf. Article 240(8): “(3) The Kenya Defence Forces— (a) are responsible for the defence and protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic; (b) shall assist and cooperate with other authorities in situations of emergency or disaster, and report to the National Assembly whenever deployed in such circumstances; and (c) may be deployed to restore peace in any part of Kenya affected by unrest or instability only with the approval of the National Assembly.”. CORRECTION TO A COMMON MISSTATEMENT, verified against the text: the escalating extension thresholds in Article 58(3) are TWO-THIRDS and then THREE-QUARTERS of all the members of the National Assembly, not two-thirds and then sixty-five per cent. Note also that Article 58(6) speaks of LIMITING a right rather than derogating from one, and that Article 25 lists rights that “shall not be limited” at all. This record supports the declaration, extension, review and limitation architecture; it records no state of emergency and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read from the same Kenya Law text, Chapter Four article by article. Supports Art. 24(1), the limitation clause: a right shall not be limited “except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including — (a) the nature of the right or fundamental freedom; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; and (e) the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.” Supports Art. 24(2), which is the provision that distinguishes Kenya's clause from South Africa's: a limiting provision enacted or amended on or after the effective date “is not valid unless the legislation specifically expresses the intention to limit that right or fundamental freedom, and the nature and extent of the limitation” (24(2)(a)); shall not be construed as limiting unless clear and specific (24(2)(b)); and “shall not limit the right or fundamental freedom so far as to derogate from its core or essential content” (24(2)(c)). Supports Art. 24(3): “The State or a person seeking to justify a particular limitation shall demonstrate to the court, tribunal or other authority that the requirements of this Article have been satisfied.” Supports Art. 24(5), that legislation may limit the application of Arts. 31, 36, 37, 41, 43 and 49 to persons serving in the Kenya Defence Forces or the National Police Service. Supports Art. 27(1): “Every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.” Supports Art. 31 verbatim: “Every person has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have — (a) their person, home or property searched; (b) their possessions seized; (c) information relating to their family or private affairs unnecessarily required or revealed; or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed.” Supports Art. 49(1), rights of arrested persons, including (a) to be informed promptly, in a language the person understands, of the reason for the arrest, the right to remain silent, and the consequences of not remaining silent; (b) to remain silent; (c) to communicate with an advocate and other persons whose assistance is necessary; (d) not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence; (f) to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible but not later than 24 hours after being arrested, or the end of the next court day where the 24 hours end outside ordinary court hours; and (h) to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions unless there are compelling reasons not to be. Supports Art. 50(1), the right of every person to have a dispute resolvable by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that these provisions are worded “Every person” and “An arrested person”. Constitutional text only — no decision of the Kenyan courts, no statute, nothing about any other country.
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz), English translation
Bundesministerium der Justiz / Bundesamt für Justiz (Gesetze im Internet) · Legislation · 1949-05-23 · link verified 2026-07-24
Translation by Professors Christian Tomuschat, David P. Currie, Donald P. Kommers and Raymond Kerr in cooperation with the Language Service of the German Bundestag; offered subject to stated conditions of use. The page states the text reflects amendments up to 22 March 2025. THE GERMAN TEXT IS AUTHORITATIVE and the translation may lag later amendments. Supports: Art. 20(1) federal state; Art. 30 (exercise of state powers is a matter for the Länder except as otherwise provided); Art. 70 (Länder legislate unless the Basic Law confers power on the Federation; exclusive vs concurrent); Art. 73(1) no. 10 (cooperation in criminal police matters; establishment of a Federal Criminal Police Office); Art. 74(1) no. 1 (concurrent legislation over criminal law and court organisation and procedure, EXCEPT the law on pre-trial detention); Art. 83 (Länder execute federal laws in their own right); Art. 87(1) (federal law may establish Federal Border Police authorities and central police offices); Art. 92 (judicial power vested in the Federal Constitutional Court, federal courts and the courts of the Länder); Art. 95(1) (the five federal supreme courts); Art. 96 (further federal courts); Art. 97 (judicial independence); Art. 35 (mutual legal and administrative assistance). Does NOT support any claim about how a particular Land organises its institutions. WAVE 19 ADDITION, read from the same official English translation page. NOTE ON NUMBERING, verified rather than assumed: in the current text the COMPOSITION of the Federal Constitutional Court is Article 93 and its JURISDICTION is Article 94 — the reverse of the allocation these two articles carried historically and of the numbering most secondary sources still cite. Supports Art. 93(5): a federal law regulates the organisation and procedure of the Court, and "the law may require that all other legal remedies be exhausted before a constitutional complaint may be filed and may provide for a separate proceeding to determine whether the complaint will be accepted for decision". Supports Art. 94(1) no. 2, ABSTRACT review: the Court rules "in the event of disagreements or doubts concerning the formal or substantive compatibility of federal law or Land law with this Basic Law or the compatibility of Land law with other federal law on application of the Federal Government, of a Land government or of one fourth of the Members of the Bundestag". Supports Art. 94(1) no. 4a, the INDIVIDUAL constitutional complaint: the Court rules "on constitutional complaints, which may be filed by any person alleging that one of his basic rights or one of his rights under paragraph (4) of Article 20 or under Article 33, 38, 101, 103 or 104 has been infringed by public authority". Supports Art. 94(1) no. 4b and 4c (municipal complaints and complaints by associations about non-recognition as political parties), and Art. 94(4), that decisions of the Court bind the constitutional organs. Supports Art. 100(1), CONCRETE review: "If a court concludes that a law on whose validity its decision depends is unconstitutional, the proceedings shall be stayed, and a decision shall be obtained from the Land court with jurisdiction over constitutional disputes where the constitution of a Land is held to be violated or from the Federal Constitutional Court where this Basic Law is held to be violated" — that is, the ordinary court must refer and may not itself disapply the statute. Supports Art. 100(3), that a Land constitutional court proposing to derogate from a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court must obtain a decision from it. The German text remains authoritative and the translation may lag later amendments. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same official English translation page and cross-checked against the German original at gesetze-im-internet.de, article by article. The Grundgesetz carries THREE distinct emergency regimes, and conflating them is the commonest error about it. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 35(1), (2) sentence 2: “(1) Alle Behörden des Bundes und der Länder leisten sich gegenseitig Rechts- und Amtshilfe. (2) [...] Zur Hilfe bei einer Naturkatastrophe oder bei einem besonders schweren Unglücksfall kann ein Land Polizeikräfte anderer Länder, Kräfte und Einrichtungen anderer Verwaltungen sowie des Bundesgrenzschutzes und der Streitkräfte anfordern.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 35(3): “(3) Gefährdet die Naturkatastrophe oder der Unglücksfall das Gebiet mehr als eines Landes, so kann die Bundesregierung, soweit es zur wirksamen Bekämpfung erforderlich ist, den Landesregierungen die Weisung erteilen, Polizeikräfte anderen Ländern zur Verfügung zu stellen, sowie Einheiten des Bundesgrenzschutzes und der Streitkräfte zur Unterstützung der Polizeikräfte einsetzen. Maßnahmen der Bundesregierung nach Satz 1 sind jederzeit auf Verlangen des Bundesrates, im übrigen unverzüglich nach Beseitigung der Gefahr aufzuheben.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 91(2): “(2) Ist das Land, in dem die Gefahr droht, nicht selbst zur Bekämpfung der Gefahr bereit oder in der Lage, so kann die Bundesregierung die Polizei in diesem Lande und die Polizeikräfte anderer Länder ihren Weisungen unterstellen sowie Einheiten des Bundesgrenzschutzes einsetzen. Die Anordnung ist nach Beseitigung der Gefahr, im übrigen jederzeit auf Verlangen des Bundesrates aufzuheben.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 87a(2), (4): “(2) Außer zur Verteidigung dürfen die Streitkräfte nur eingesetzt werden, soweit dieses Grundgesetz es ausdrücklich zuläßt. [...] (4) Zur Abwehr einer drohenden Gefahr für den Bestand oder die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung des Bundes oder eines Landes kann die Bundesregierung, wenn die Voraussetzungen des Artikels 91 Abs. 2 vorliegen und die Polizeikräfte sowie der Bundesgrenzschutz nicht ausreichen, Streitkräfte zur Unterstützung der Polizei und des Bundesgrenzschutzes beim Schutze von zivilen Objekten und bei der Bekämpfung organisierter und militärisch bewaffneter Aufständischer einsetzen. Der Einsatz von Streitkräften ist einzustellen, wenn der Bundestag oder der Bundesrat es verlangen.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115a(1): “(1) Die Feststellung, daß das Bundesgebiet mit Waffengewalt angegriffen wird oder ein solcher Angriff unmittelbar droht (Verteidigungsfall), trifft der Bundestag mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates. Die Feststellung erfolgt auf Antrag der Bundesregierung und bedarf einer Mehrheit von zwei Dritteln der abgegebenen Stimmen, mindestens der Mehrheit der Mitglieder des Bundestages.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115a(2), (3), (4): “(2) Erfordert die Lage unabweisbar ein sofortiges Handeln und stehen einem rechtzeitigen Zusammentritt des Bundestages unüberwindliche Hindernisse entgegen oder ist er nicht beschlußfähig, so trifft der Gemeinsame Ausschuß diese Feststellung mit einer Mehrheit von zwei Dritteln der abgegebenen Stimmen, mindestens der Mehrheit seiner Mitglieder. [...] (4) Wird das Bundesgebiet mit Waffengewalt angegriffen und sind die zuständigen Bundesorgane außerstande, sofort die Feststellung nach Absatz 1 Satz 1 zu treffen, so gilt diese Feststellung als getroffen und als zu dem Zeitpunkt verkündet, in dem der Angriff begonnen hat.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115g: “Die verfassungsmäßige Stellung und die Erfüllung der verfassungsmäßigen Aufgaben des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes und seiner Richter dürfen nicht beeinträchtigt werden. Das Gesetz über das Bundesverfassungsgericht darf durch ein Gesetz des Gemeinsamen Ausschusses nur insoweit geändert werden, als dies auch nach Auffassung des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes zur Aufrechterhaltung der Funktionsfähigkeit des Gerichtes erforderlich ist. Bis zum Erlaß eines solchen Gesetzes kann das Bundesverfassungsgericht die zur Erhaltung der Arbeitsfähigkeit des Gerichtes erforderlichen Maßnahmen treffen.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115l(1), (2): “(1) Der Bundestag kann jederzeit mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates Gesetze des Gemeinsamen Ausschusses aufheben. [...] (2) Der Bundestag kann mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates jederzeit durch einen vom Bundespräsidenten zu verkündenden Beschluß den Verteidigungsfall für beendet erklären. Der Bundesrat kann verlangen, daß der Bundestag hierüber beschließt. Der Verteidigungsfall ist unverzüglich für beendet zu erklären, wenn die Voraussetzungen für seine Feststellung nicht mehr gegeben sind.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 101: “(1) Ausnahmegerichte sind unzulässig. Niemand darf seinem gesetzlichen Richter entzogen werden. (2) Gerichte für besondere Sachgebiete können nur durch Gesetz errichtet werden.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 19(2) and Art. 79(3): “In keinem Falle darf ein Grundrecht in seinem Wesensgehalt angetastet werden. [Art. 19(2)] — Eine Änderung dieses Grundgesetzes, durch welche die Gliederung des Bundes in Länder, die grundsätzliche Mitwirkung der Länder bei der Gesetzgebung oder die in den Artikeln 1 und 20 niedergelegten Grundsätze berührt werden, ist unzulässig. [Art. 79(3)]”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115c(1), (3): “(1) Der Bund hat für den Verteidigungsfall das Recht der konkurrierenden Gesetzgebung auch auf den Sachgebieten, die zur Gesetzgebungszuständigkeit der Länder gehören. Diese Gesetze bedürfen der Zustimmung des Bundesrates. [...] (3) Soweit es zur Abwehr eines gegenwärtigen oder unmittelbar drohenden Angriffs erforderlich ist, kann für den Verteidigungsfall durch Bundesgesetz mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates die Verwaltung und das Finanzwesen des Bundes und der Länder abweichend von den Abschnitten VIII, VIIIa und X geregelt werden, wobei die Lebensfähigkeit der Länder, Gemeinden und Gemeindeverbände, insbesondere auch in finanzieller Hinsicht, zu wahren ist.”. These provisions support the STRUCTURE of German emergency law and nothing about its application. They record no instance of any regime being invoked, state no measure taken under one, and support no claim about any Land's own disaster-protection law or about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read again from the same official English translation page and checked article by article against the authoritative German original at gesetze-im-internet.de/gg. Supports the LIMITATION architecture: Art. 19(1)-(2), “(1) Soweit nach diesem Grundgesetz ein Grundrecht durch Gesetz oder auf Grund eines Gesetzes eingeschränkt werden kann, muß das Gesetz allgemein und nicht nur für den Einzelfall gelten. Außerdem muß das Gesetz das Grundrecht unter Angabe des Artikels nennen. (2) In keinem Falle darf ein Grundrecht in seinem Wesensgehalt angetastet werden.”, and Art. 19(3)-(4) (basic rights apply to domestic legal persons so far as their nature permits; recourse to the courts where rights are violated by public authority, with the second sentence of Art. 10(2) expressly unaffected). Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER finding, verified in the German text rather than the translation because the finding is about a word: Art. 8(1) “Alle Deutschen haben das Recht, sich ohne Anmeldung oder Erlaubnis friedlich und ohne Waffen zu versammeln”; Art. 9(1) “Alle Deutschen haben das Recht, Vereine und Gesellschaften zu bilden”; Art. 11(1) “Alle Deutschen genießen Freizügigkeit im ganzen Bundesgebiet”; Art. 12(1) “Alle Deutschen haben das Recht, Beruf, Arbeitsplatz und Ausbildungsstätte frei zu wählen” — against Art. 2(1) “Jeder hat das Recht auf die freie Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit”, Art. 3(1) “Alle Menschen sind vor dem Gesetz gleich”, and the two provisions that name no holder at all: Art. 10(1) “Das Briefgeheimnis sowie das Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis sind unverletzlich” and Art. 13(1) “Die Wohnung ist unverletzlich”. Supports Art. 1(3), that the basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law. Supports Art. 2(2), that everyone has the right to life and physical integrity, that freedom of the person is inviolable, and that these rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law. Supports the HOME provision in full: Art. 13(2) “Durchsuchungen dürfen nur durch den Richter, bei Gefahr im Verzuge auch durch die in den Gesetzen vorgesehenen anderen Organe angeordnet und nur in der dort vorgeschriebenen Form durchgeführt werden”; Art. 13(3), acoustic surveillance of a home on judicial order where particular facts justify suspicion of an especially serious crime specifically defined by law and alternative methods would be disproportionately difficult or unproductive, for a limited time, ordered by a panel of three judges (a single judge where time is of the essence); Art. 13(4), technical surveillance to avert acute dangers only on judicial order, with a subsequent judicial decision without delay where time was of the essence; Art. 13(5); Art. 13(6), annual reporting to the Bundestag and parliamentary oversight by an elected panel, with comparable oversight in the Länder; and Art. 13(7). Supports the COMMUNICATIONS provision: Art. 10(2), that restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law and that where the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by review by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature. Supports Art. 103(1) (“Vor Gericht hat jedermann Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör”) and Art. 104(1)-(4), including Art. 104(2) “Die Polizei darf aus eigener Machtvollkommenheit niemanden länger als bis zum Ende des Tages nach dem Ergreifen in eigenem Gewahrsam halten” and Art. 104(3), that a person provisionally detained on suspicion of an offence is brought before a judge no later than the day following arrest, who informs, examines, and either issues a written reasoned arrest warrant or orders release. VERIFIED NEGATIVE, and it is stated as a fact about the text and not about German law: the Grundgesetz contains no privilege against self-incrimination and no right to silence. An exhaustive search of the authoritative German text for “Selbstbelastung”, “schweigen”, “Aussage zu verweigern” and “Geständnis” returns zero occurrences, as does a search of the English translation for “incriminat”, “silent”, “silence”, “confession” and “witness against”. This record therefore does NOT support any claim that the principle is absent from German law — it supports only that it is absent from this constitutional text. The German text remains authoritative and the translation may lag later amendments.
Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Listina základních práv a svobod, Resolution No. 2/1993 Coll.) — official English translation
Ústavní soud (Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic) · Legislation · 1993-01-01 · link verified 2026-09-05
WAVE 21 ADDITION. A SEPARATE INSTRUMENT from the Constitution already held as `cz-constitution`: the Czech constitutional order comprises the Ústava and this Listina, and citing one for the other would be wrong. Fetched as a PDF from the Constitutional Court and text-extracted, article by article. The Czech text is authoritative. Supports Listina Art. 4: "(1) Duties may be imposed only on the basis, and within the bounds, of law, and only while respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms. (2) Limitations may be placed upon the fundamental rights and freedoms only by law and under the conditions prescribed in this Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. (3) Any statutory limitation upon the fundamental rights and freedoms must apply in the same way to all cases which meet the specified conditions. (4) When employing the provisions concerning limitations upon the fundamental rights and freedoms, the essence and significance of these rights and freedoms must be preserved. Such limitations shall not be misused for purposes other than those for which they were enacted." Supports Art. 7(1): "The inviolability of the person and of her privacy is guaranteed. They may be limited only in cases provided for by law." Supports Art. 8(1)-(5), including: "(2) No one may be prosecuted or deprived of her liberty except on the grounds and in the manner specified by law."; "(3) [...] A person who is detained shall be immediately informed of the grounds for the detention, questioned, and within forty-eight hours at the latest, either released or turned over to a court. A judge must question the detained person and decide, within twenty-four hours of receiving her, whether the person shall be placed in custody or released."; "(4) A person accused of a criminal act may be arrested only on the basis of a warrant issued by a judge in writing and stating the grounds for the arrest."; "(5) Nobody may be placed in custody, except on the grounds and for the period of time laid down in a law, and only on the basis of a judicial decision." Supports Art. 10(2)-(3) (protection from unauthorized intrusion into private and family life; from unauthorized gathering, public revelation or other misuse of personal data). Supports Art. 12: "(1) A person’s dwelling is inviolable. It may not be entered without the permission of the person living there. (2) A dwelling may be searched only for the purposes of a criminal proceeding on the basis of a search warrant issued by a judge in writing and giving the reasons therefore. The manner in which a dwelling may be searched shall be specified by law. (3) Other encroachments upon the inviolability of a dwelling may be permitted by law only if such is necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the life or health of individuals, for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, or in order to avert a serious threat to public security and order." Supports Art. 13: "No one may violate the confidentiality of letters or the confidentiality of other papers or records, whether privately kept or sent by post or by some other means, except in the cases and in the manner designated by law. The confidentiality of communications sent by telephone, telegraph, or by other similar devices is guaranteed in the same way." Supports Art. 37(1)-(4): "(1) Everyone has the right to refuse to give testimony if she would thereby incriminate herself or a person close to her. (2) In proceedings before courts, other State bodies, or public administrative authorities, everyone shall have the right to legal assistance from the very beginning of such proceedings. (3) All parties to such proceedings are equal. (4) Anyone who declares that she does not speak the language in which a proceeding is being conducted has the right to the services of an interpreter." Supports Art. 38(1)-(2): "(1) No one may be removed from the jurisdiction of her lawful judge. [...] (2) Everyone has the right to have her case considered in public, without unnecessary delay, and in her presence, as well as to express her opinion on all of the admitted evidence. The public may be excluded only in cases specified by law." Supports Art. 40(2)-(4), including "(4) The accused has the right to refuse to give testimony; she may not be deprived of this right in any manner whatsoever." LIMITATIONS: this is constitutional text only. It records no decision of the Ústavní soud, no provision of the trestní řád, and nothing about how any provision is applied. It supports no claim about any other country.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), Arts. 4(3)(c), 15, 19, 32 and 34
Official treaty text as published by the Government of the Netherlands (Overheid.nl, Verdragenbank BWBV0001000) · International organisation · 1950-11-04 · link verified 2026-08-26
ACCESS LIMITATION, stated first because it affects how this record should be read: the Council of Europe's own Convention PDF at echr.coe.int returned HTTP 403 to an automated request and to a direct request with a browser user-agent, and IT WAS NEVER READ. The text used is the authentic English text as published in the official treaty database of the Government of the Netherlands, a state party, read in the version in force from 1 August 2021 and cross-checked against the version in force from 10 June 2010. Supports ECHR Art. 15(1): “1 In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”. Supports ECHR Art. 15(2), read with Arts. 2, 3, 4(1) and 7 as printed in the same document: “2 No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.”. Supports ECHR Art. 15(3): “3 Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.”. Supports ECHR Art. 4(3)(c), read with Arts. 5, 6 and 15(2): “3 For the purpose of this Article the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include: [..] (c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;”. Cited for the STRUCTURE of the Convention's derogation clause and for its non-derogable list. It binds the States Parties to the Convention and is NOT evidence of any particular state's domestic law — no national claim on this platform rests on it. It establishes nothing about whether any derogation has ever been lodged, nothing about the Court's case law, and nothing about states outside the Council of Europe.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read in full from the same official Dutch treaty-database text. Supports Art. 5(1), and specifically that it states an EXHAUSTIVE list: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, followed by six lettered grounds (a) to (f). Supports Art. 5(2) (informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons for arrest and of any charge) and Art. 5(3) (anyone arrested or detained under 5(1)(c) brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, and entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial). Supports Art. 6(1) in full, including that judgment “shall be pronounced publicly” while the press and public may be excluded on the grounds it lists. Supports Art. 6(2) and Art. 6(3)(a)-(e), including (b) adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and (d) “to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him”. Supports Art. 8(1)-(2): “1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Supports Art. 11(1)-(2) in the same two-limb form. VERIFIED NEGATIVES, each established by exhaustive search of the Convention text and each stated as a fact about the text rather than about the Strasbourg case law, which was NOT researched: the words “proportion”, “equality of arms”, “silence” and “self-incrimination” occur ZERO times in the Convention. This record establishes treaty text binding the states party to it. It is not evidence of the domestic law of any state, and the corpus invariant forbidding a treaty from standing in for a country applies to it.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 999, No. I-14668)
United Nations · International organisation · 1966 · link verified 2026-07-23
Authentic treaty text as registered in the UN Treaty Series; registered ex officio 23 March 1976. Supports the fair-trial guarantees of Article 14, including the right to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and the presumption of innocence (Art. 14(2)). Binding only on states party to it; does not support claims about states that have not ratified, nor about how any individual state applies it. WAVE 19 ADDITION, read from the same authentic treaty text in the UN Treaty Series PDF, text-extracted locally. Supports Article 14(5) in full: "Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law." The qualifier "according to law" is part of the provision and is load-bearing: the right is to review as the law of the state provides, not to appeal without limit or by any chosen route. Supports Article 14(6): where a person has by a FINAL decision been convicted of a criminal offence and the conviction has subsequently been reversed or the person pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to that person. Supports Article 14(3)(g), that no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt, and Article 14(4), that the procedure for juvenile persons shall take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation. WAVE 20 ADDITION. PROVENANCE, stated precisely because this record's url is a different copy: the Article 4 material below was read on 2026-08-26 from OHCHR's official PDF of the Covenant at https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/ccpr.pdf. The United Nations Treaty Series copy at this record's url timed out repeatedly this session and was not re-read, so nothing in this addition rests on it. Article 4 is the derogation clause, and its four cumulative conditions are the point. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(1): “1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.”. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(2), read with Arts. 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16 and 18 as printed in the same document: “2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.”. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(3): “3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.”. The Covenant binds States Parties to it. It is NOT evidence of any particular state's domestic law, and no country claim on this platform rests on it. It designates no organ to proclaim an emergency, assigns no role to any national legislature, and creates no civil-protection institution. The Human Rights Committee's interpretation of this article is cited separately and attributed to the Committee.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read from the same United Nations Treaty Series PDF, text-extracted and searched. Supports Art. 9(1)-(4), and specifically that the Covenant polices ARBITRARINESS rather than closing a list of grounds: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law”; with 9(2) (informed at the time of arrest of the reasons and promptly of any charges), 9(3) (brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power; it shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody) and 9(4) (entitlement to take proceedings before a court which decides without delay on the lawfulness of the detention). Supports Art. 14(1): “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals”, with the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the closed grounds on which press and public may be excluded, and the rule that judgment shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. Supports Art. 14(3)(e) (“To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him”), 14(3)(f) (free assistance of an interpreter) and 14(3)(g) (“Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt” — note that the Covenant adds the confession limb, which the European Convention text does not contain). Supports Art. 14(5). VERIFIED NEGATIVES from exhaustive search of the Covenant text: “proportion” occurs zero times, “equality of arms” zero times, and “remain silent” zero times. This is treaty text binding states party to it; it is not evidence of any state's domestic law, and the corpus invariant forbidding a treaty from standing in for a country applies to it.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982, Part I)
Government of Canada — Justice Laws Website (laws-lois.justice.gc.ca) · Legislation · 1982-04-17 · link verified 2026-07-26
The authoritative text (English; French equally authoritative), read in full. Supports the 'Legal Rights' (ss.7-14): s.7 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice'; s.11(d) the right 'to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal'; s.12 'Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment'. Also s.18(1): the statutes of Parliament are printed in English and French 'and both language versions are equally authoritative' — the equal-authenticity rule. Both versions have legal effect. WAVE 14 ADDITION, read from the same authoritative page: s.14, marginal-noted “Interpreter”, in full — “A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.” Note that the provision covers any proceedings rather than criminal proceedings only, extends to witnesses as well as parties, and treats deafness alongside not understanding the language of the proceedings. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same Justice Laws text of the Charter. Supports Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 1 (Constitution Act, 1982, Part I): “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”. Supports Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 33(1); s. 33(3) ("shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force"); s. 33(4)-(5) (re-enactment): “shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter”. IMPORTANT NEGATIVE FINDING, established during adversarial review: Canada has NO domestic derogation mechanism for an emergency. Limitation of Charter rights runs through the ordinary s. 1 test, and a legislature may additionally use the s. 33 declaration, which has its own five-year clock. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is unincorporated in Canadian law; the Emergencies Act preamble directs the Governor in Council to “have regard to” it, which is a direction to consider and not an incorporation. This record supports no claim about any use of s. 33 and no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read again from the same Justice Laws text, section by section. Supports s. 1, the general limitation clause, verbatim: the Charter “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” — and, as the pages relying on it state, the section enumerates NO factors, which is what distinguishes it from South Africa's s. 36 and Kenya's Art. 24. Supports s. 7 (“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”). Supports s. 8 verbatim: “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” — a provision containing no warrant requirement, no authorising authority and no procedure. Supports s. 9 (not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned). Supports s. 10 in full: “Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.” Supports the VERIFIED NEGATIVE that s. 10 confers no right to silence and imposes no duty to inform a person of one: the section informs of reasons and of the right to counsel, and stops. Supports s. 11(a)-(i), including (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence, (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence, and (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Supports s. 13 verbatim: “A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence” — a use-immunity mechanism, not a right to refuse to testify. Supports s. 14 (interpreter). Supports s. 24(1) and s. 24(2), that evidence obtained in a manner infringing a Charter right “shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute”. Constitutional text only: no decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and in particular nothing about the Oakes framework, which was NOT researched for this wave.