A/HRC/27/35 21. Ms. Mijatović pointed out that countries often respond to calls to address the issue by requesting more time, arguing that they are different, or that the issue of free speech is very sensitive in their societies. She believed, however, that progress was too slow. The OSCE Representative argued that free media, free speech and the safety of journalists would not come overnight nor naturally, and that once achieved they could not be taken for granted. There was a need to constantly justify, reaffirm and strengthen human rights. She expressed concern, however, that without political will, not much progress could be expected. She planned to continue engaging with Governments, but also believed that, without change in social attitudes to freedoms in general, not much progress was to be expected in free speech, freedom of the media and the safety of journalists. 22. When asked about lessons learned from the Latin American region, the Special Rapporteur replied that the region had not been an exception to high levels of violence against journalists, but that some countries in Latin America had engaged in creative responses. He praised the human rights defenders protection mechanism in Colombia, which had been expanded to include journalists. The mechanism was a tripartite commission in which the Ministry of the Interior (security agencies), journalists and human rights organizations came together to define the dangers and risks faced by journalists and to formulate responses. While every State was free to design its own responses, the Special Rapporteur believed that every State should have a similar emergency response mechanism to protect journalists. He also referred to measures taken in Mexico, such as the appointment of a special prosecutor and the fact that crimes against journalists are now considered federal crimes. These were all ways in which States could fight impunity for crimes against journalists. The Special Rapporteur, however, cautioned again that, without political will, not much could be achieved. States had to be convinced that the freedom of the press was crucial for national security and democracy. IV. Summary of the discussion 23. During the interactive discussion, delegations from Algeria, Austria, Brazil, China, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt (on behalf of the Arab Group), Estonia, the European Union, France, Greece, India, the International Organisation of la Francophonie, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation(also on behalf of the Collective Security Treaty Organization), Slovenia, Switzerland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America took the floor. Statements by Australia, Belgium, Cuba, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Norway, Qatar, Serbia and South Africa were not delivered owing to lack of time. Copies of their statements were however distributed in the room and posted on the Human Rights Council extranet. 24. Delegates of the following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Article 19 – International Centre Against Censorship, the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (in collaboration with the Southeast Asian Alliance), the East Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, the International Federation of Journalists, the International Humanist and Ethical Union and the Press Emblem Campaign. A. Freedom of expression and the safety of journalists 25. Many speakers stressed the importance of, and linkages between, the freedom of opinion and expression, a free and vibrant media and the safety of journalists. Respect for freedom of expression, free access to information and free, independent and vibrant media were described the cornerstone of any democratic society and considered of crucial 8