A blanket obligation on judges to waive their right to privacy in general, which also constitutes an additional eligibility requirement to become and remain a judge, appears to constitute an undue restriction of judges’ right to privacy. Also, the legitimate aim being pursued is not clear and would appear to expand unduly the permissible aims set out in Article 20 par 2 (which reflect those generally stipulated in the ICCPR). Finally, while the Venice Commission has acknowledged that restrictions to judges’ rights to privacy may be justified to combat corruption in order to conduct surveillance measures in respect to financial operations of holders of judicial offices, it has also noted that such restrictions should be accompanied by adequate and effective procedural guarantees to protect these persons from abuse. It is thus recommended to reconsider the introduction of the new Article 94 par 8-1 into the Constitution to avoid undue violations of judges’ basic human rights.