provide evidence-based justifications of the necessity and proportionality of such interference with freedom of expression. They must demonstrate how the perceived benefits of these measures outweigh the importance of the Internet as a tool to maximize the number and diversity of voices in the discussion of numerous issues. Any lack of transparency with regard to blocking or content removal measures renders it difficult to assess whether such restrictions were really necessary for the purported aim. Consequently, there is a need for much greater transparency by States to clarify what content they are filtering, blocking or removing and on what basis.57 The principle of proportionality applies to the law that frames the restrictions, as well as the administrative and judicial authorities enforcing the law.58 29. Moreover, State restrictions “must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those which might achieve their protective function [and] they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected.”59 If a State’s interference could have been achieved by any other means that would have resulted in less restriction of expression, that State is in violation of Article 19.60 30. The Committee has explained that “[t]he principle of proportionality must also take account of the form of expression at issue as well as the means of its dissemination”; for example, “the value placed by the Covenant upon uninhibited expression is particularly high in the circumstances of public debate in a democratic society concerning figures in the public and political domain.”61 31. Internet shutdowns typically obstruct general access to all Internet-based sites and applications. “Restrictions must not be overbroad,”62 yet it is difficult to imagine a broader measure than a wholesale shutting down of the Internet. Indeed, disabling access to the entire Internet is a ‘generic ban’ that never operates in the least restrictive means possible.63 A coalition of international human rights organizations and experts, including the Special Rapporteur, have issued a joint declaration stating that “[f]iltering of content on the Internet, using communications ‘kill switches’ (i.e. shutting down entire parts of communications systems) . . . are measures which can never be justified under human rights law.”64 57 U.N. Doc. A/HRC/33/29, paras. 53-54 (21 July 2016), https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/33/29. 58 See General Comment 34, para. 34. 59 General Comment 27, para. 14. 60 See Communication No. 359, 385/89, Ballantyne, Davidson and McIntyre v. Canada. 61 General Comment 34, para. 34. 62 General Comment 34, para. 34. 63 According to Barbora Bukovska of the international freedom of expression organization ARTICLE 19, Internet shutdowns “are always a disproportionate restriction on the right to freedom of expression, and have serious repercussions for the protection of other human rights” Woodhams, Samuel. “Contesting the Legality of Internet Shutdowns,” Just Security (1 October 2019), https://www.justsecurity.org/66317/contesting-the-legality-of-internetshutdowns/. 64 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Responses to Conflict Situations, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15921&LangID=E. 9