-14benefits if that proves necessary to develop, improve or maintain the sustainability of the welfare system as a whole. E.5 38. Constitutional review where rights are protected by Article 36 As this Court has recognized, some rights are non-derogable and absolute, in which case, no infringement is permitted and no question of proportionality arises.28 But in other cases, it is well-established that the law may validly create restrictions on constitutionally protected rights provided that each such restriction can be justified on a proportionality analysis. 39. The starting-point is the identification of the constitutional right engaged29 – Article 36 in the present case. The next step is to identify the legal or administrative measure said to infringe or restrict that right – the imposition of the seven-year residence requirement in the present case (to which I shall return in greater detail). The Court then asks whether that restriction pursues a legitimate societal aim and, having identified that aim, it asks whether the impugned restriction is rationally connected with the accomplishment of that end. If such rational connection is established, the next question is whether the means employed are proportionate or whether, on the contrary, they make excessive inroads into the protected right.30 40. In some cases involving fundamental rights such as freedom of expression or freedom of peaceful assembly,31 or rights bearing on criminal 28 Ubamaka Edward Wilson v Secretary for Security FACV 15/2011 (21 December 2012), involving for example, the prohibition of torture and of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 29 See for instance Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong v Secretary for Justice (2011) 14 HKCFAR 754 at §65-§66. 30 See for example, HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574 at §§36-44 on how the proportionality test operates. 31 As in Leung Kwok Hung v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229.