Certainly. Thank you very much.
Yes, you're referring to a guidance note that we did that looks at emergency measures and their impact. There are two different ways that states can derogate from human rights. There's the formal way—which is what you were referring to—under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which allows certain rights to be derogated when there is a state of emergency in place that has been notified under the convention.
Most places that declared emergencies did not actually go to that limit and did not try to officially declare a state of emergency and move towards derogation. The types of rights that can't be derogated, for example, include the right against torture—things that, under most circumstances, there couldn't be a justification for.
Most states instead relied on the provisions of human rights law that do allow for restrictions that are necessary for public health. It is the case that restrictions exist for security and health under existing law. You just have to be transparent, non-discriminatory and put in place measures to ensure that those steps do not overreach the necessity of the public health emergency.
It's that type of guidance that we've tried to provide, to make sure that states do not move in a direction that over-utilizes or is overly broad in the ways in which they restrict rights. We've obviously seen that many of us have had our rights restricted by lockdown measures and other things that are consistent with human rights law. We've also seen, as I mentioned earlier, that there have been instances where states have used such measures to disadvantage opposition groups, civil society and others in ways that were not necessary.