“Only the most wilful blindness could obscure the fact that intimacy is a sensitive, key relationship of human existence, central to family life, community welfare, and the development of human personality” 72. The judicial body concerned with ruling under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – The Human Rights Committee – and the European Court of Human Rights have all found that blanket prohibitions on same-sex sexual activity all violate the right to privacy. In these judgements the courts adopted the threefold test referred to previously: firstly to consider whether the right has been violated, secondly whether the violation serves a legitimate government purpose, and thirdly whether the law in question is no broader than necessary to achieve that purpose. In each of these judgements the fact that the law violated the right to privacy was never an issue and was usually conceded by the State Party. The defence raised by the State parties has predominantly sought to raise the justification of a legitimate government purpose – the protection of public morals. This argument has been uniformly rejected. Under the European Convention, the judgements have consistently followed the ruling in Dudgeon’s case 73 which held that the blanket prohibition on same-sex sex under legislation in the Northern Ireland violated the complainant’s right to privacy. For purposes of the European Convention, once interference in the right is established, the level of scrutiny is that the interference “must be necessary in a democratic society”. The court was prepared to accept that where morals are concerned that each State is allowed a “margin of appreciation” in order to take into account the varying morals standards of each State. However the judgement went onto to hold that: The present case concerns a most intimate aspect of private life. Accordingly there must exist particularly serious reasons before interferences on the part of public authorities can legitimate…74 The Court took note of the fact that in Northern Ireland there existed: a strong body of opposition stemming from a genuine and sincere conviction shared by a large number of responsible members of the Northern Irish Community that a change in the law would be seriously damaging to the moral fabric of society75. However, the court held that: The Convention Right affected by the impugned legislation protects an essentially private manifestation of the human personality76. And that: Although members of the public who regard homosexuality as immoral may be shocked, offended or disturbed by the commission by others of private homosexual acts, this cannot on its own warrant the application of penal sanctions when it is consenting adults alone who are involved ... The moral attitudes towards male 72 ibid at p. 155. 73 Dudgeon v UK, Judgement of 30th January, 1981 Series A vol. 45. 74 At para. 54. Compare President of RSA v Hugo 1997(4) SA (CC) at para. 112: The more vulnerable the group adversely affected by the discrimination, the more likely the discrimination will be held to be unfair. Similarly, the more invasive the nature of the discrimination, the more likely it will be held to be unfair. 75 76 at para. 59. at para. 60. Compare National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others CCT11/98 para. 30