A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems fingerprint data for the issuance of passports in the EU, ultimately upholding the practice.31 20. In each of the national court judgments exploring the constitutionality of national identity systems, some form of proportionality test has been applied. In Kenya, a proportionality framework is outlined by the Kenyan High Court, although the judgment does not explicitly tie its findings to the framework. In Mauritius, the test was used in the specific context of a public order exception within the Mauritian Constitution’s provisions governing searches. In India and Jamaica, the proportionality framework was employed to balance the negative consequences for human rights identified by the courts with the stated aims of the systems. Generally speaking, proportionality requires that a law or regulation: (1) have a legitimate state aim, (2) meet some threshold of substantial relationship to the stated aim, (3) meet some threshold of necessity for meeting the stated aim in the least restrictive way, and (4) balance in favour of the aim rather than the negative implications.32 The various court judgments discussed in this guide differ in some respects in their conception of the proportionality requirements and their application to identity systems, but proportionality has formed the standard test under which these schemes are considered. 31 Michael Schwarz, ¶ 66. 32 See, eg Madhewoo, 2015 SCJ 177 at 27; Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 446 at 540; Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 218 of dissent; Julian J. Robinson, ¶ 247 (B)(19). 15