98. An ancillary issue raised by the Respondent requires an examination whether this opinion of a political nature must necessarily be expressed through the platform of a political party. Indeed political parties have the advantage of collectively advancing the cause of their members as it relates to how a country is governed. Nevertheless, as stated above, all Senegalese have the inherent right to express a political opinion which cannot be forcefully subsumed under the umbrella of a political party. 99. Having made this clarification, the Court hastens to state that while the guarantee of freedom of expression is not absolute, interference is permissible under certain circumstances including interests of national security, public safety, public order, health and freedoms of others. ARTICLE 19 (3) A & B ICCPR. 100. Thus where there is an interference, the Respondent is obliged to justify same with sufficient reason to the satisfaction of the Court. In the instant case, the Respondent merely stated that the ban on political demonstration was to avert the breakdown of national security. Upon examination of Order N° 7580 / MINSTSP of 20 July 2011 and the circumstances allegedly justifying the ban on political demonstration by the Respondent, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order is unduly broad and vague which is supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Senegal wherein it stated that the sole security justification is insufficient and obliges the Respondent "...to specify the alleged risk as well as the absence of alternative measures to the ban, the only reference to disturbance of public order being imprecise and inadequate" (Exhibit 5 Judgment N° J / 176 / RG / 15 of 11/05/2015). 32