In OLSSON V. SWEDEN (No. 1): ECHR, 24th March (1988), the court elaborated on necessity where it held that: “the notion of necessity implies that an interference corresponds to a pressing social need and in particular, that it is proportionate with the legitimate aim pursued. The Principle of proportionality recognizes that human rights are not absolute and that the exercise of individual rights must always be checked by broader public interest. This must be done with a consideration of striking a fair balance between the individual rights and the public interest. In SOERING V. THE UNITED KINGDOM, (Series A, No.161; Application No 14038/88) ECHR 7th July (1989), the court held that: inherent in the whole of the Convention is a search for a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirement for the protection of individual fundamental rights. The Plaintiffs in his application stated the grounds upon which his documents were seized. The Defendant instead of putting up a proper defense to the Plaintiffs claims alleges that the Plaintiff is out of time and that the claims do not fall under human right violations. The Defendant has neither proved that the act complained of was done in accordance with the law, nor that it pursues a legitimate aim necessary in a democratic society or that it is proportionate to the pursuit of a certain aim. The Defendant has evaded justifying the act. The more far reaching and severe an interference, the stronger the 29