are invoked as the reason to monitor personal data and correspondence, the law must clearly specify the criteria to be applied in determining those cases in which such limitations are legitimate.573 Their application should be authorized solely when there is a definite risk to the protected interests, and when that harm is greater than society’s general interest in maintaining the rights to privacy and the free expression of thought and the circulation of information.574 312. In the same Report, and regarding the applicable procedural safeguards, it was indicated that: 164. Furthermore, any restriction to freedom of expression or privacy on the Internet as a result of a State security measure should respect the procedural requirements imposed by inter-American law. (…) As discussed below, the Special Rapporteurs have already underscored the need for effective controls to ensure that online surveillance programs are designed and implemented taking account of all of the rights at stake, including the procedural guarantees.575 165. In light of the above, decisions to undertake surveillance activities that invade the privacy of individuals must be authorized by independent judicial authorities, who must state why the measure is appropriate for the accomplishment of the objectives pursued in the specific case; whether it is sufficiently restricted so as not to infringe upon the right in question more than necessary; and whether it is proportionate in relation to the interests pursued. In this respect, the European Court of Human Rights has held that “in a field where abuse is potentially so easy in individual cases and could have such harmful consequences for democratic society as a whole, it is in principle desirable to entrust supervisory control to a judge.”576 States must ensure that the judicial authority is specialized and competent to make decisions on the legality of the communications surveillance, the technologies used, and its impact on the sphere of rights that could be involved. 166. The State must be transparent with respect to the laws regulating communications surveillance and the criteria used for their application.577 The principle of “maximum disclosure” is applicable to this issue, and indeed governs all State acts: they are public and can only be kept secret from the public under the strictest circumstances, provided that this confidentiality is established by law, seeks to fulfill a legitimate aim under the American Convention, and is necessary in a democratic society.578 167. As the European Court of Human Rights has held, a secret surveillance system can “undermine or even destroy democracy under the cloak of defending it.” The Court therefore demands that there be “adequate and effective guarantees against abuse.”579 573 United Nations. General Assembly. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue. A/HRC/23/40. April 17, 2013. Para. 81. Available for consultation at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?m=85 574 United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression and Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. June 21, 2013. Joint Declaration on surveillance programs and their impact on freedom of expression. Point 9. 575 United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression and Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. June 21, 2013. Joint Declaration on surveillance programs and their impact on freedom of expression. Point 9. 576 European Court of Human Rights. Affaire Ashby Donald et autres c. France. Requête no 36769/08. Arrêt. 10 janvier 2013. Para. 36; European Court of Human Rights. Case of Klass and others v. Germany. Application no. 5029/71. Judgment 6 September 1978. Para. 56. 577 United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression and Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. June 21, 2013. Joint Declaration on surveillance programs and their impact on freedom of expression. Point 12; United Nations. General Assembly. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue. A/HRC/23/40. April 17, 2013. Para. 91 and 92. Available for consultation at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?m=85 578 IACHR. Annual Report 2009. Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter IV (The Right of Access to Information). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 51. December 30, 2009. Para. 9 and 45. 579 European Court of Human Rights. Case of Weber and Saravia v. Germany. Application no. 54934/00. Decision as to the admissibility of 29 June 2006. Para. 106. 61