requirements: the restriction must be based on a specific legal provision 69 and be applied proportionately. 70 In other words, the State may restrict rights justifiably if it observes the principle of legal reserve – formal justification 71 - and the principle of proportionality – material justification. It is important to emphasize that those requirements should be complied with accumulatively. 72 It is not sufficient to refer back to a norm that provides express authorization in order to certify the legitimacy of a specific intervention or restriction; rather, it is necessary to verify that the principle of proportionality was respected in the specific case. Conversely, it is not sufficient to demonstrate the proportionality of the restriction without being able to indicate specific legal grounds. 73 In this regard the UN Human Rights Committee has also indicated that it is necessary for any interference in the home not only to be lawful, but also not to be arbitrary, observing the particular circumstances of each case. 74 40. The first condition to justify a restriction of a fundamental right is observance of the principle of legal reserve. 75 Aharon Barak reminds us that “[i]n a constitutional democracy, a constitutional right cannot be limited unless such a limitation is authorized by law.” 76 The principle of legal reserve also requires that the law authorizing the intervention in a fundamental right be clear and decisive. As Greco has stated, “without a specific law that establishes the intervention with relative clarity and imposes material and procedural limits, the intervention in a fundamental right will not be lawful.” 77 In cases such as this one, compliance with this principle is even more important because it relates to an exception to a categorical prohibition: the general prohibition of nighttime house raids. Therefore, not only the normal intervention consisting in a house raid should be established by law, 78 but also, and with special rigor and care, 79 the limited exceptions to the prohibition of nighttime raids. 41. At first sight or in the abstract, this requirement relating to the principle of legal reserve is met in the case examined, given that, as already mentioned, the exceptions allowing nighttime raids were established in the Bolivian Constitution and in the infraconstitutional legal order, following the example of most of the domestic legal systems of the Americas. 80 However, the principle of legal reserve means not only that the intervention must be established by law; it is also necessary that the norm be applied within the strict limits of the authorizing law. In other words, it is essential that the law Cf., for example, Advisory Opinion 6/86. The Word “Laws “ in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 24 69 Cf., for example, Case of Jenkins v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2019. Series C, No. 397, para. 76. 70 71 Cf. MICHAEL, Lothar; MORLOK, Martin. Grundrechte, 8th ed., Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2023, p. 330. Cf., for example, Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, §47, and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, §90. 72 73 Cf. GRECO, op. cit., p. 48. Cf. Human Rights Committee, ICCPR. Communication No 687/1996, Rojas García v. Colombia (2001). Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/450059. para. 10.3. 74 75 Especially with regard to legal reserve in criminal proceedings, cf. ROGALL, Klaus. Informationseingriff und Gesetzvorbehalt im Strafprozeßrecht, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, vol. 103, 1991, pp. 907 ff. 76 BARAK, Aharon. Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations, Cambridge, 2012, p. 107. Regarding the relationship between the principle of legality and human rights, cf. GARIBALDI, Oscar. General Limitations on Human Rights: The Principle of Legality, Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 17, 1976, pp. 503 ff. 77 GRECO, op. cit., p. 37. Cf. GENTZ, Manfred. Die Unverletzlichkeit der Wohnung – Artikel 13 des Grundgesetzes, Duncker & Humblot: Berlin, 1968, p. 74; CABEZUDO BAJO, op. cit., p. 37. 78 Regarding the importance of the clarity and limited scope of the law that authorizes intervention in a fundamental right, cf. KINGREEN, Thorsten; POSCHER, Ralf. Grundrechte – Staatsrecht II, 38th ed., C. F. Müller: Heidelberg, 2022, p. 111. And, specifically in relation to home raids, PARK, cit., § 1 No. 26. 79 80 Judgment, footnote 223. 10