relevant circumstances into account, was it necessary in a democratic society for these ends see Steven Greer: The exceptions to Articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 1) Interference with the right to privacy. 67. The question to answer is whether there was an interference with the right to privacy of the Applicants. It is the Applicants’ case that the filming and recording of the activities in their offices and residence was effected without their consent. This fact was not controverted by the Respondent and thus remains factual. Consequently the Court finds an interference with the privacy of the Applicants. 2) In accordance with law 68. The purpose of the phrase “in accordance with the law” is to ensure that the scope for arbitrary tampering with rights by the executive is limited by domestic legislative or judicial authority. The question that arises is did the filming and recording comply with the law so as to justify the interference in the applicants’ privacy. In the case of Huvig v. France 11105/84 and Kruslin v. France 11801/85; the European Court of Human Rights identified three questions which provide a test for deciding if any given interference with a specific right(s) was “legal”: Does the domestic legal system sanction the infraction? Is the relevant legal provision accessible to the citizen? Is the legal provision sufficiently precise to enable the citizen reasonably foresee the consequences which a given action may entail? a) Sanction of infraction by domestic legal system 69. The concept of “law” in this context is not confined to domestic legal processes but admits compliance with international human rights laws that impose international legal obligations applicable to the state in question, and a variety of internal regulations based on law. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner’s acts are in compliance with both the Whistle Blowing Act and The Data Protection Act and therefore are in accordance with the Law. The Applicants have not disputed the assertion. It is clear from the interpretation of the Whistle Blowing Act 2006 (Act 720) of Ghana that it empowers the disclosure of any information by any person on reasonable suspicion that another person has not complied with a law, is about or likely to break a law which imposes an obligation on that person. 24