Source: http://so-for-humanity.com2000.at/index.php?modul=content&rubrik=9&aid=9061&page=
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:16:33+00:00

Document:
2. Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person. They are essential for any society.» 1 They constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society. The two freedoms are closely related, with freedom of expression providing the vehicle for the exchange and development of opinions.
3. Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights.
4. Among the other articles that contain guarantees for freedom of opinion and/or expression, are articles 18, 17, 25 and 27. The freedoms of opinion and expression form a basis for the full enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights. For instance, freedom of expression is integral to the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of assembly and association, and the exercise of the right to vote.
8. States parties are required to ensure that the rights contained in article 19 of the Covenant are given effect to in the domestic law of the State, in a manner consistent with the guidance provided by the Committee in its general comment No. 31 on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant. It is recalled that States parties should provide the Committee, in accordance with reports submitted pursuant to article 40, with the relevant domestic legal rules, administrative practices and judicial decisions, as well as relevant policy level and other sectorial practices relating to the rights protected by article 19, taking into account the issues discussed in the present general comment. They should also include information on remedies available if those rights are violated.
10. Any form of effort to coerce the holding or not holding of any opinion is prohibited.» 11 Freedom to express one’s opinion necessarily includes freedom not to express one’s opinion.
11. Paragraph 2 requires States parties to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers. This right includes the expression and receipt of communications of every form of idea and opinion capable of transmission to others, subject to the provisions in article 19, paragraph 3, and article 20.» 12 It includes political discourse,» 13 commentary on one’s own» 14 and on public affairs,» 15 canvassing,» 16 discussion of human rights,» 17 journalism,» 18 cultural and artistic expression,» 19 teaching,» 20 and religious discourse.» 21 It may also include commercial advertising. The scope of paragraph 2 embraces even expression that may be regarded as deeply offensive,» 22 although such expression may be restricted in accordance with the provisions of article 19, paragraph 3 and article 20.
12. Paragraph 2 protects all forms of expression and the means of their dissemination. Such forms include spoken, written and sign language and such non-verbal expression as images and objects of art.» 23 Means of expression include books, newspapers,» 24 pamphlets,» 25 posters, banners,» 26 dress and legal submissions. » 27 They include all forms of audio-visual as well as electronic and internet-based modes of expression.
14. As a means to protect the rights of media users, including members of ethnic and linguistic minorities, to receive a wide range of information and ideas, States parties should take particular care to encourage an independent and diverse media.
15. States parties should take account of the extent to which developments in information and communication technologies, such as internet and mobile based electronic information dissemination systems, have substantially changed communication practices around the world. There is now a global network for exchanging ideas and opinions that does not necessarily rely on the traditional mass media intermediaries. States parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media and to ensure access of individuals thereto.
16. States parties should ensure that public broadcasting services operate in an independent manner.» 32 In this regard, States parties should guarantee their independence and editorial freedom. They should provide funding in a manner that does not undermine their independence.
17. Issues concerning the media are discussed further in the section of this general comment that addresses restrictions on freedom of expression.
19. To give effect to the right of access to information, States parties should proactively put in the public domain Government information of public interest. States parties should make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective and practical access to such information. States parties should also enact the necessary procedures, whereby one may gain access to information, such as by means of freedom of information legislation.» 39 The procedures should provide for the timely processing of requests for information according to clear rules that are compatible with the Covenant. Fees for requests for information should not be such as to constitute an unreasonable impediment to access to information. Authorities should provide reasons for any refusal to provide access to information. Arrangements should be put in place for appeals from refusals to provide access to information as well as in cases of failure to respond to requests.
20. The Committee, in general comment No. 25 on participation in public affairs and the right to vote, elaborated on the importance of freedom of expression for the conduct of public affairs and the effective exercise of the right to vote. The free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential. This implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issues and to inform public opinion without censorship or restraint.» 40 The attention of States parties is drawn to the guidance that general comment No. 25 provides with regard to the promotion and the protection of freedom of expression in that context.
21. Paragraph 3 expressly states that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. For this reason two limitative areas of restrictions on the right are permitted, which may relate either to respect of the rights or reputations of others or to the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public) or of public health or morals. However, when a State party imposes restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, these may not put in jeopardy the right itself. The Committee recalls that the relation between right and restriction and between norm and exception must not be reversed.» 41 The Committee also recalls the provisions of article 5, paragraph 1, of the Covenant according to which “nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant”.
25. For the purposes of paragraph 3, a norm, to be characterized as a “law”, must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly» 53 and it must be made accessible to the public. A law may not confer unfettered discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution.» 54 Laws must provide sufficient guidance to those charged with their execution to enable them to ascertain what sorts of expression are properly restricted and what sorts are not.
29. The second legitimate ground is that of protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
31. On the basis of maintenance of public order (ordre public) it may, for instance, be permissible in certain circumstances to regulate speech-making in a particular public place.» 68 Contempt of court proceedings relating to forms of expression may be tested against the public order (ordre public) ground. In order to comply with paragraph 3, such proceedings and the penalty imposed must be shown to be warranted in the exercise of a court’s power to maintain orderly proceedings.» 69 Such proceedings should not in any way be used to restrict the legitimate exercise of defence rights.
40. The Committee reiterates its observation in general comment No. 10 that “because of the development of modern mass media, effective measures are necessary to prevent such control of the media as would interfere with the right of everyone to freedom of expression”. The State should not have monopoly control over the media and should promote plurality of the media.» 99 Consequently, States parties should take appropriate action, consistent with the Covenant, to prevent undue media dominance or concentration by privately controlled media groups in monopolistic situations that may be harmful to a diversity of sources and views.
42. The penalization of a media outlet, publishers or journalist solely for being critical of the government or the political social system espoused by the government» 103can never be considered to be a necessary restriction of freedom of expression.
44. Journalism is a function shared by a wide range of actors, including professional full-time reporters and analysts, as well as bloggers and others who engage in forms of self-publication in print, on the internet or elsewhere, and general State systems of registration or licensing of journalists are incompatible with paragraph 3. Limited accreditation schemes are permissible only where necessary to provide journalists with privileged access to certain places and/or events. Such schemes should be applied in a manner that is non-discriminatory and compatible with article 19 and other provisions of the Covenant, based on objective criteria and taking into account that journalism is a function shared by a wide range of actors.
46. States parties should ensure that counter-terrorism measures are compatible with paragraph 3. Such offences as “encouragement of terrorism”» 108 and “extremist activity”» 109 as well as offences of “praising”, “glorifying”, or “justifying” terrorism, should be clearly defined to ensure that they do not lead to unnecessary or disproportionate interference with freedom of expression. Excessive restrictions on access to information must also be avoided. The media plays a crucial role in informing the public about acts of terrorism and its capacity to operate should not be unduly restricted. In this regard, journalists should not be penalized for carrying out their legitimate activities.
49. Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.» 116 The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events. Restrictions on the right of freedom of opinion should never be imposed and, with regard to freedom of expression, they should not go beyond what is permitted in paragraph 3 or required under article 20.
51. What distinguishes the acts addressed in article 20 from other acts that may be subject to restriction under article 19, paragraph 3, is that for the acts addressed in article 20, the Covenant indicates the specific response required from the State: their prohibition by law. It is only to this extent that article 20 may be considered as lex specialis with regard to article 19.
52. It is only with regard to the specific forms of expression indicated in article 20 that States parties are obliged to have legal prohibitions. In every case in which the State restricts freedom of expression it is necessary to justify the prohibitions and their provisions in strict conformity with article 19.
» 1  See communication No. 1173/2003, Benhadj v. Algeria, Views adopted on 20 July 2007; No. 628/1995, Park v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 5 July 1996.
» 2  See the Committee’s general comment No. 24 (1994) on issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to the declarations under article 41 of the Covenant, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fiftieth Session, Supplement No. 40, vol. I (A/50/40 (Vol. I)), annex V.
» 3  See the Committee’s general comment No. 29 (2001) on derogation during a state of emergency, para. 13, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 40, vol. I (A/56/40 (Vol. I)), annex VI.
» 4  General comment No. 29, para. 11.
» 5  General comment No. 24.
» 7  See communication No. 61/1979, Hertzberg et al. v. Finland, Views adopted on 2 April 1982.
» 8  General comment No. 31, para. 8; See communication No. 633/1995, Gauthier v. Canada, Views adopted on 7 April 1999.
» 9  See communication No. 550/93, Faurisson v. France, Views adopted on 8 November 1996.
» 10  See communication No. 157/1983, Mpaka-Nsusu v. Zaire, Views adopted on 26 March 1986; No. 414/1990, Mika Miha v. Equatorial Guinea, Views adopted on 8 July 1994.
» 11  See communication No. 878/1999, Kang v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 15 July 2003.
» 12  See communications Nos. 359/1989 and 385/1989, Ballantyne, Davidson and McIntyre v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 October 1990.
» 13  See communication No. 414/1990, Mika Miha v. Equatorial Guinea.
» 14  See communication No. 1189/2003, Fernando v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 31 March 2005.
» 15  See communication No. 1157/2003, Coleman v. Australia, Views adopted on 17 July 2006.
» 16  Concluding observations on Japan (CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5).
» 17  See communication No. 1022/2001, Velichkin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 20 October 2005.
» 18  See communication No. 1334/2004, Mavlonov and Sa’di v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 19 March 2009.
» 19  See communication No. 926/2000, Shin v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 16 March 2004.
» 20  See communication No. 736/97, Ross v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 October 2000.
» 23  See communication No. 926/2000, Shin v. Republic of Korea.
» 24  See communication No. 1341/2005, Zundel v. Canada, Views adopted on 20 March 2007.
» 25  See communication No. 1009/2001, Shchetoko et al. v. Belarus, Views adopted on 11 July 2006.
» 26  See communication No. 412/1990, Kivenmaa v. Finland, Views adopted on 31 March 1994.
» 27  See communication No. 1189/2003, Fernando v. Sri Lanka.
» 28  See communication No. 1128/2002, Marques v. Angola, Views adopted on 29 March 2005.
» 29  See communication No. 633/95, Gauthier v. Canada.
» 30  See the Committee’s general comment No. 25 (1996) on article 25 (Participation in public affairs and the right to vote), para. 25, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first Session, Supplement No. 40, vol. I (A/51/40 (Vol. I)), annex V.
» 31  See communication No. 1334/2004, Mavlonov and Sa’di v. Uzbekistan.
» 32  Concluding observations on Republic of Moldova (CCPR/CO/75/MDA).
» 33  See communication No. 633/95, Gauthier v. Canada.
» 34  See communication No. 1334/2004, Mavlonov and Sa’di v. Uzbekistan.
» 35  See communication No. 726/1996, Zheludkov v. Ukraine, Views adopted on 29 October 2002.
» 37  General comment No. 31.
» 38  See communication No. 1457/2006, Poma v. Peru, Views adopted on 27 March 2009.
» 39  Concluding observations on Azerbaijan (CCPR/C/79/Add.38 (1994)).
» 40  See General comment No. 25 on article 25 of the Covenant, para. 25.
» 42  See communication No. 1022/2001, Velichkin v. Belarus, Views adopted on 20 October 2005.
» 44  See communication No. 458/91, Mukong v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 21 July 1994.
» 45  See communication No. 1353/2005, Njaru v. Cameroon, Views adopted on 19 March 2007.
» 46  See, for instance, concluding observations on Algeria (CCPR/C/DZA/CO/3); concluding observations on Costa Rica (CCPR/C/CRI/CO/5); concluding observations on Sudan (CCPR/C/SDN/CO/3).
» 47  See communication No. 1353/2005, Njaru v. Cameroon ; concluding observations on Nicaragua (CCPR/C/NIC/CO/3); concluding observations on Tunisia (CCPR/C/TUN/CO/5); concluding observations on the Syrian Arab Republic (CCPR/CO/84/SYR); concluding observations on Colombia (CCPR/CO/80/COL).
» 48  Ibid. and concluding observations on Georgia (CCPR/C/GEO/CO/3).
» 49  Concluding observations on Guyana (CCPR/C/79/Add.121).
» 50  See communication No. 633/95, Gauthier v. Canada.
» 51  See communication No. 1373/2005, Dissanayake v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 22 July 2008.
» 52  See general comment No. 32.
» 53  See communication No. 578/1994, de Groot v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 July 1995.
» 54  See general comment No. 27.
» 55  See communication No. 488/1992, Toonen v. Australia, Views adopted on 30 March 1994.
» 56  General comment No. 20, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/47/40), annex VI, sect. A.
» 57  See communication No. 1553/2007, Korneenko et al. v. Belarus, Views adopted on 31 October 2006.
» 58  See communication No. 132/1982, Jaona v. Madagascar, Views adopted on 1 April 1985.
» 59  See communication No. 927/2000, Svetik v. Belarus, Views adopted on 8 July 2004.
» 61  See communication No. 736/97, Ross v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 October 2000.
» 62  See communication No. 550/93, Faurisson v. France; concluding observations on Austria (CCPR/C/AUT/CO/4).
» 63  Concluding observations on Slovakia (CCPR/CO/78/SVK); concluding observations on Israel (CCPR/CO/78/ISR).
» 64  Concluding observations on Hong Kong (CCPR/C/HKG/CO/2).
» 65  Concluding observations on the Russian Federation (CCPR/CO/79/RUS).
» 66y  Concluding observations on Uzbekistan (CCPR/CO/71/UZB).
» 67  See communication No. 518/1992, Sohn v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 18 March 1994.
» 68  See communication No. 1157/2003, Coleman v. Australia.
» 69  See communication No. 1373/2005, Dissanayake v. Sri Lanka.
» 70  See communication No. 359, 385/89, Ballantyne , Davidson and McIntyre v. Canada.
» 71  See communication No. 736/97, Ross v. Canada, Views adopted on 17 July 2006.
» 72  General comment No. 27, para. 14. See also Communications No. 1128/2002, Marques v. Angola; No. 1157/2003, Coleman v. Australia.
» 73  See communication No. 1180/2003, Bodrozic v. Serbia and Montenegro, Views adopted on 31 October 2005.
» 74  See communication No. 926/2000, Shin v. Republic of Korea .
» 75  See communication No. 518/1992, Sohn v. Republic of Korea .
» 76  See communication No. 511/1992, Ilmari Länsman, et al. v. Finland, Views adopted on 14 October 1993.
» 77  See communications Nos. 518/92, Sohn v. Republic of Korea; No. 926/2000, Shin v. Republic of Korea,.
» 78  Concluding observations on Japan (CCPR/C/JPN/CO/5).
» 80  Concluding observations on Tunisia (CCPR/C/TUN/CO/5).
» 81  Concluding observations on Togo (CCPR/CO/76/TGO); concluding observations on Moldova (CCPR/CO/75/MDA).
» 82  See communication No. 968/2001, Kim v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 14 March 1996.
» 83  See communication No. 1180/2003, Bodrozic v. Serbia and Montenegro, Views adopted on 31 October 2005.
» 85  See communication No. 1128/2002, Marques v. Angola.
» 86  See communications Nos. 422-424/1990, Aduayom et al. v. Togo, Views adopted on 30 June 1994.
» 87  Concluding observations on the Dominican Republic (CCPR/CO/71/DOM).
» 88  Concluding observations on Honduras (CCPR/C/HND/CO/1).
» 89  See concluding observations on Zambia (CCPR/ZMB/CO/3), para.25.
» 90  See concluding observations on Costa Rica (CCPR/C/CRI/CO/5), para. 11.
» 91  Ibid., and see concluding observations on Tunisia (CCPR/C/TUN/CO/5), para. 91..
» 92  See concluding observations on Viet Nam (CCPR/CO/75/VNM), para. 18, and concluding observations on Lesotho (CCPR/CO/79/Add.106), para. 23.
» 93  Concluding observations on Gambia (CCPR/CO/75/GMB).
» 94  See concluding observations on Lebanon (CCPR/CO/79/Add.78), para. 25.
» 95  Concluding observations on Kuwait (CCPR/CO/69/KWT); concluding observations on Ukraine (CCPR/CO/73/UKR).
» 96  Concluding observations on Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/CO/69/KGZ).
» 97  Concluding observations on Ukraine (CCPR/CO/73/UKR).
» 98  Concluding observations on Lebanon (CCPR/CO/79/Add.78).
» 99  See concluding observations on Guyana (CCPR/CO/79/Add.121), para. 19; concluding observations on the Russian Federation (CCPR/CO/79/RUS); concluding observations on Viet Nam (CCPR/CO/75/VNM); concluding observations on Italy (CCPR/C/79/Add. 37).
» 100  See concluding observations on Lesotho (CCPR/CO/79/Add.106), para. 22.
» 101  Concluding observations on Ukraine (CCPR/CO/73/UKR).
» 102  Concluding observations on Sri Lanka (CCPR/CO/79/LKA); and see concluding observations on Togo (CCPR/CO/76/TGO), para. 17.
» 103  Concluding observations on Peru (CCPR/CO/70/PER).
» 104  Concluding observations on the Syrian Arab Republic (CCPR/CO/84/SYR).
» 105  Concluding observations on Uzbekistan (CCPR/CO/83/UZB); concluding observations on Morocco (CCPR/CO/82/MAR).
» 106  Concluding observations on Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (CCPR/CO/72/PRK).
» 107  Concluding observations on Kuwait (CCPR/CO/69/KWT).
» 108  Concluding observations on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6).
» 109  Concluding observations on the Russian Federation (CCPR/CO/79/RUS).
» 110  Concluding observations on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6).
» 113  Concluding observations on Italy (CCPR/C/ITA/CO/5); concluding observations on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (CCPR/C/MKD/CO/2).
» 114  See communication No. 909/2000, Kankanamge v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 27 July 2004.
» 115  Concluding observations on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland-the Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man (CCPR/C/79/Add.119). See also concluding observations on Kuwait (CCPR/CO/69/KWT).
» 116  So called “memory-laws”, see communication No. , No. 550/93, Faurisson v. France. See also concluding observations on Hungary (CCPR/C/HUN/CO/5) paragraph 19.
» 117  See communication No. 736/1997, Ross v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 October 2000.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.