Representative and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders5, and the UN Human Rights Committee6. The recommendations made to Cambodia during the Universal Periodic Review conducted by the Human Rights Council and accepted by the Royal Government7, and the latest Concluding Observations on Cambodia of the UN HRCte8, include several specifically on this basic right. The HRCte, in particular, concluded that “the State party should ensure that everyone can freely exercise his or her right to freedom of expression and association... In doing so, the State party should: … (d) Review its current and pending legislation… to avoid the use of vague terminology and overly broad restrictions, to ensure that any restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression and association comply with the strict requirements of articles 19 (3) and 22 of the Covenant.” Freedom of association belongs to every person, regardless his or her age, nationality, political orientation, or past experience. Article 22, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR foresees that restrictions might need to be placed on the enjoyment of freedom of association under certain circumstances. However, these must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. According to the UN HRCte, the burden of proof is on the State party to explain why any restrictions it imposes are necessary.9 The term “necessity” refers to both, whether a certain measure must be taken and the extent to which a measure is to be taken. The human rights mechanisms recommend that any restrictive measure should be put to a strict proportionality test to ensure that the limitations are in fact necessary to obtain the pursued aim. International human rights law requires certainty in the law. In this regard, there are several provisions in this draft law that are vague or unclear, which could lead, for example, to the dissolution of a trade union based on subjective reasons, or to the arbitrary limitation of a union member’s rights enshrined in the ICCPR, ICESCR and ILO Conventions. Additionally, the draft law foresees an important role of the Ministry in charge of Labour vis-à-vis the functioning of trade unions and employer associations, which could interfere with their “right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes” without interference from the public authorities, as established in article 3 of ILO Convention No. 87. OHCHR recognizes the efforts made by the Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training to negotiate the contents of the draft law with a range of concerned parties, although transparency                                                                                                                                                                                                13, A/HRC/23/39, paras. 15 and 17, A/HRC/26/29, paras. 16 to 21, A/HRC/29/25 para. 21. 5 Reports of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, A/59/401, A/64/226, A/67/292, and HRC/25/55. 6 Human Rights Committee, General Comments No. 15 (1986) on the position of aliens under the Covenant, No. 23 (1994) on minority rights, No. 25 (1996) on the rights of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to public service, and No. 34 (2011) on freedoms of opinion and expression; Concluding Observations on Cambodia (CCPR/C/KHM/CO/2) among many concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee; Communication No. 1226/2003, Korneenko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 20 July 2012; No. 1383/2005, Katsora et al. v. Belarus, Views adopted on 25 October 2010; No. 1993/2010, Mikhailovskaya and Volchek v. Belarus, Views adopted on 24 July 2014, para. 7.3; No. 2165/2012, Pinchuk v. Belarus, Views adopted on 24 October 2014, among many decisions of the Human Rights Committee. 7 Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of Cambodia, 2014 A/HRC/26/16 and Add.1 Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review, A/HRC/26/16/Add.1, recommendations 118.19, 118.104, 118.106, 118.107, 118.110, 118.111, and Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of Cambodia, 2009 A/HRC/13/4, recommendations 51 and 56. 8 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on the second periodic report of Cambodia, CCPR/C/KHM/CO/2, March 2015. 9 See Communication No. 1383/2005, Katsora et al. v. Belarus, Views adopted on 25 October 2010 and Communication No. 2165/2012, Pinchuk v. Belarus, Views adopted on 24 October 2014, among other decisions of the Human Rights Committee. 4