64. In analyzing the submission of the parties, the Court is mindful to ask what the right to privacy contemplates. The origin of the right to privacy is derived from the principle of the right ‘to be left alone’ which can be evoked to protect the privacy of an individual from invasion either by a too enterprising press, a photographer, or the possessions of any other modern devices for the recording or reproducing of scenes and sounds. See Prince Albert Vs Strange; (1849) 47 ER 1302. This principle has been codified by several international human rights instrument in varying styles but basically guaranteeing the protection of individuals from unlawful or arbitrary interference to the privacy of their homes, property, correspondence or communications. See Articles Article 17 ICCPR which is pari – material with Article 12 of the UDHR and Article 18(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana is hereby recited: Article 17 ICCPR reads: 1) “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference” Exceptions to the Right to privacy 65. While these articles protect the right to privacy, however this right should not be understood to be absolute and unconditional. Art 29 of the UDHR which is parimaterial with Art 8(2) of the ECHR and Article 18(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana limits their enjoyment. Article 29 UDHR reads: 1) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 66. A successful defense of the violation of this right is contingent upon compliance with two vital conditions: that the interference, is prescribed by, or is in accordance with, law and that it is necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of one or more of the objectives outlined. The exception raises four questions which the court will now address. First, was there an interference with the right in question? Secondly, if so, was it in accordance with, or prescribed by, law? Thirdly, was it genuinely in pursuit of one or more of the legitimate purposes at issue? Finally, taking all the 23