The second criterion of the proportionality test assesses whether the limitation is:

The second criterion of the proportionality test focuses on whether the limitation imposed on a right is necessary to achieve the stated objective. This means that for a limitation to be justified, it must not only aim to achieve a legitimate goal but also be essential in reaching that goal effectively. In other words, there should be no less restrictive means available that could attain the same result.

For instance, if a government wishes to limit freedom of expression to prevent hate speech, it must demonstrate that such a restriction is crucial for this purpose and that alternative methods (such as education or dialogue) would not be as effective in safeguarding public order or protecting against harm. This criterion is fundamental because it ensures that any limitations placed on human rights are not arbitrary or excessive but are instead carefully warranted and balanced against the need to protect society and individuals.

The other options focus on different aspects: alignment with international trends does not directly pertain to the necessity of achieving the objective; legislative approval speaks to the legal process rather than the justification of the limitation; and economic viability addresses financial considerations rather than the effectiveness or necessity of the limitation itself. Each of these elements is relevant in broader contexts but does not capture the essence of the second criterion of the proportionality test, which centers firmly on