30. All this must be understood in terms of the balancing exercise described above given that different and sometimes competing interests, rights andfreedoms are or may be at stake. This is all the more so when quite often, one is concerned with a risk that justice cannot be done (if it is to be administered openly) rather than a , certainty that this will be so. In that type of situation the court，s , task is to balance that risk (and other relevant interests etc) against other competing considerations and come up with an answer that best serves the situation at hand. 31. Seventh, apart from the interests of justice, there are other similarly important considerations that may justify restrictions on open justice. Thus article 10 of the Hong Kong Bill ofRights also mentions " reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of all parties so requires “ as exceptions to the requirement of a public hearing. See, for instance, In re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] 2 AC 697 (right to respect for private andfamily life). 32. Eighth, where justice can be administered openly in the case itself, but to do so would or might jeopardise some right or interest of one or both of the parties outside of the case, whether open justice should be restricted and if so, the manner and extent of restriction, must be considered by conducting the balancing exercise already described. One common example is cases concerning refugees or torture claimants where it is said that the life, limb or liberty of the refugee or torture claimant or their family 19