It must also be noted that violations of artistic expression are not limited to state conduct directed towards the artist per se. They also apply to acts targeted at the public; Hence, removing creative expressions from public access is a way to restrict artistic freedom. Ironically enough, restrictions are often imposed in the name of the public which, however, is prevented from making its own judgement.82 As a general rule or approach to limitations, the limitation of freedom of artistic expression must resort to limitations when it is absolutely necessary to do so. The greatest challenge, and therefore a threat to artistic expression is the inappropriate application by the government of restrictions otherwise allowed by international law.83 For instance, as argued in various parts of this report, while a restriction in the interest of public security is permissible in international law, governments often cast a wide net to say expressions critical of government policy are therefore a threat to national security without pointing out the precise legal aspects of why the artistic expression would have that effect. 3.6 Consistency with the international standards Upon ratifying the international and regional human rights and related instruments, Zimbabwe accepted and assumed two kinds of obligations: (1) to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights protected by the treaty, and (2) to remedy violations of those rights. Thus, Article 2 of the ICCPR states that: Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party ... undertakes ... to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. Further Zimbabwe undertakes in accordance with ICCPR and similarly-worded treaties: 82 83 Shaheed Report, para. 5. Shaheed Report, para. 41. 66 | P a g e