What does the proposed law likely fail under the HRC's essay analysis?

The proposed law likely fails under the HRC's essay analysis primarily due to issues of necessity and proportionality. These two principles are essential in assessing the legitimacy of any restrictions or limitations on human rights.

Necessity refers to whether a restriction is needed to achieve a legitimate aim, while proportionality examines whether the measures taken are appropriate and not overly restrictive in relation to that aim. In human rights law, any limitation on rights must be scrutinized to ensure it is the least intrusive means available for achieving the stated objective. If the proposed law does not clearly demonstrate that the restriction is necessary for a legitimate purpose and that the means employed are proportionate, it is likely to be deemed in violation of international human rights standards.

Other choices, while relevant to human rights analysis, do not directly address the core issues of necessity and proportionality that are central to evaluating the legitimacy of restrictions on rights. Thus, while each of them may indicate potential shortcomings, they do not carry the specific weight that necessity and proportionality do in many contexts of human rights assessment.