A/HRC/4/27 page 14 53. Intrusion in the private life of the individual, regardless to his/her social status, is not compatible with the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The right to privacy plays a fundamental role in guaranteeing the full enjoyment of freedom of expression because through the protection of the most intimate sphere of the individual, it ensures that everybody can exercise his/her rights without fear of being ridiculed or, at worst, blackmailed. 54. Another preoccupying trend is the attempt to replace defamation of individuals with the concept of defamation of common values, to be treated within the sphere of criminal law. These values would include a sense of national identity, State symbols like the flag or the national anthem, and State institutions, figures or representatives like the Supreme Court, the country’s father(s) or the Prime Minister, usually defined as “defamation of the State”.5 In this connection, the Special Rapporteur stresses that the exercise of freedom of speech should always be guaranteed for the examination of historical events. The introduction of new legislation, in which defamation is defined under another terminology, is also unacceptable. 55. An encouraging trend can be observed in various parts of the world towards the decriminalization of defamation and related offences. Progress in this field is more evident in Latin American countries, where, despite the existence of various other forms of violation of freedom of expression, defamation as a criminal offence seems to decline.6 While awaiting the adoption and the entry into force of ad hoc legislative instruments, relevant authorities should take emergency measures, like amnesty or pardon, in order to ensure that no media professional or other citizen is incarcerated on charges of defamation, and eventual fines are of reasonable amount. 56. At the same time, countries are still insisting on the application of legislative measures, which gravely penalize the freedom of the press, imposing harsh sanctions, including prison terms, to journalists convicted for defamation and similar offences. Such a regime may also be applied to non-journalists who can often be subject to great distress and obliged to spend remarkable amounts of money in order to hire a lawyer. 5 Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, Mexico, United Nations document CCPR/C/79/Add.109, paragraph 19. See also the comments by the Government of Mexico on the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/79/Add.123 (2000). The Human Rights Committee also welcomed the amendment of the criminal code eliminating the crime of defamation of the Republic [of Slovakia] and its representatives, concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/CO/78/SVK (2003). 6 See Principle 10 of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression (also known as the Chapultepec Declaration) approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights at its 108 regular session (1994). See also point XII, resolution on the Adoption of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa (2002), African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights/Res. 62 (XXXII) 02.