The new Article 20 par 2 extends the possibility of limiting human rights “in view of specific modalities of military or other civil service”. This wording is likewise unclear and quite vague. This provision could arguably be interpreted as allowing limitations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the armed forces, of civil servants or other persons engaged in the administration of the state. Article 22 par 2 of the ICCPR expressly recognizes the possibility of restricting the exercise of the right to freedom of association of members of the armed forces and of the police. Such restrictions may be justified where forming or joining an association would conflict with the public duties and/or jeopardize the political neutrality of the public officials concerned. At the same time, every restriction must respect the principle of proportionality and blanket bans are generally considered to be unjustifiable. More generally, it is worth highlighting that military personnel shall be able to enjoy and exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms, although some – limited – restrictions may be applied taking into consideration the requirements of the service/military needs. As a general rule, such limitations must be provided by law, be non-discriminatory and necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aim that they pursue. Similar strict requirements should apply to justify any human rights restrictions imposed on civil servants and persons engaged in the administration of the state. Given that Article 20 par 2 already contains a general provision pertaining to restrictions of human rights, including in the interests of national security, the need for this new sentence is not clear. It is thus recommended to delete it from the amended Article 20 par 2.