4. To be necessary and proportionate, the limitation shall: a. originate from a pressing and substantial need that is relevant and sufficient b. have a direct and immediate connection to the expression and disclosure of information, and be the least restrictive means of achieving the stated aim; and be such that the benefit of protecting the stated interest outweighs the harm to the expression and disclosure of information, including with respect to the sanctions authorized.” 199. This Court wrote in the same vein in the case ILLIA MALAM MAMANE SAIDAT v. REPUBLIC OF NIGER, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/17/2021 of June 22, 2021, paras. 77 to 90). 200. However, the burden is on the authorities to justify any restrictions (See GRYB v. BELARUS (CCPR/C/103/D/1316/2004), §13.4.), since those must be able to demonstrate that the restrictions meet the requirements of legality, necessity and are proportional. Wherever this burden is not met, this right is violated. (See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 37, §36; CHEBOTAREVA v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION (CCPR/C/104/D/1866/2009), §9.3 and African Commission, MALAWI AFRICAN ASSOCIATON AND OTHERS v. MAURITANIA, Comm 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164-196/97 and 210/98 (2000), §111) 201. In the instant case, the Respondent admits that the Applicant after having been arrested for disobedience for failing to comply with the summons to appear before the investigating judge, was released subject to certain restrictions; that it is apparent from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely Articles 112 to 124, that any accused person may be granted simple or conditional provisional release; that it was in the exercise of his legal prerogatives that the Dean of Investigating Judges 53