251(W) 1995, it thus submitted that, freedom of the speech “is the freedom upon which all other freedoms depends.” 49. On specific provisions of the Press Law, the Applicant submitted as hereunder:a) That compulsory accreditation under Articles 5-9 of the Press Law is not in conformity with Articles 6(d) and 7(2) because it unnecessarily and unjustifiably restricts those who become journalists. Further, that the National Communications Council enjoys vague discretion to withdraw or refuse accreditation in violation of the rights to freedom of expression. 50. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the decision in Compulsory Membership in an Association [supra], Scanlon & Holderness [supra], Kasoma vs. AG of Zambia Case 95/HP/29/95 as well as Sunday Times vs. United Kingdom Appl.no 6538/74 (1979),a decision of the European Court on Human Rights. b) That the broad and vague restrictions on press freedom under Articles 10 and 17-19 of the Press Law are not in conformity with Burundi’s obligations under Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. The submission made in that regard was that, the provisions prohibit the publication of certain categories of information in the print media, website as well as broadcasts. That the said restrictions are impermissibly vague and cannot be justified in a democratic society. 51. In support of the above submission, the UN Human Rights Committee’s General comments on the Right to Freedom of Expression was cited and particularly its comment at paragraph 34 that restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality. Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 16