A Constitutional Emergency?

On August 21^st 2011 a state of emergency was declared in Trinidad and Tobago to deal with crime. Pursuant to section 7 of the constitution, the President made the Emergency Powers Regulations, 2011 . Since that date the rights of the people of T&T have been damaged under the guise of a national security plan that flies in the face of basic human rights.
The state has a positive duty to promote and protect human rights by its actions and policy. During this emergency we have seen the exact opposite. The ‘Granny Quilla’ issue where a 14 year old girl jokingly suggested the Prime minister should be assassinated is an example of a draconian infringement of rights.
The state threatened legal action against the young girl , with the Attorney General suggesting that she ‘Turn herself over to the police and let the law take its course’ . Beyond traumatizing a young girl, the state’s handling of this matter seriously damaged the public’s right to free speech. Since this incident much of the public has been afraid to air political views for fear of prosecution.
At no point in time did the state properly clarify the extent to which the right to free speech had been limited. Instead, with their policy of ‘monitoring’ Facebook , the state has allowed the population to believe that they will be punished for discussing and condemning the acts of the government.
This arbitrariness is against the rule of law . How are citizens to act lawfully and exercise their rights when faced with such vague yet draconian policies?
Looking at the State of Emergency regulations, we see that many rights are limited that have no connection with the crime situation.
In particular, Section 7 of the regulations makes it illegal to take part in any public meeting or march without permission, limiting freedom of movement. Sections 13 and 14 limit freedom of expression and the freedom to receive and impart information. Criminals do not protest or seek to inform the public of their grievances. How then is it justifiable to limit the public’s rights in such a way?
Section 7 (3) of the constitution allows limitations of rights under the SOE to have effect once they are reasonably justifiable for the purpose of dealing with the situation that exists.
This echoes the venerable DeFreitas test for determining what a reasonably justifiable limitation of a right is :
(1) There must be a sufficiently important objective to justify limiting the right.
(2) The measures designed to meet the legislative objective must be rationally connected to it.
(3) That the means utilized must be no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective.
The last leg of the test is also similar to Article 4 of the ICCPR:

“1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation “
We see a similar caveat again repeated in the Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights norms in a state of emergency. This document crystalizes customary international law and is highly persuasive:

“2. The power to take derogatory measures as aforesaid is subject to five general conditions:
(b) Such measures must be strictly proportionate to the exigencies of the situation.

(c) Such measures must not be inconsistent with the other obligations of the state under international law.”

In light of the case law, international documents and the very wording of the constitution, how can unnecessary limitations of rights be justified? Unless the government can show that these measures were important to maintaining order and dealing with the crime situation, the state of emergency can be said to be in breach of both the Constitution and International Law.