A/HRC/4/27 page 13 statement must be false, in the sense that its contents should be totally untrue; it has to be injurious - there is no defamation without injury - and finally, unprivileged, in the sense that certain categories of individuals cannot be sued while making statements, especially in their professional capacity. Last but not least, a statement can be considered as defamatory if done with actual malice, which means that there was a real willingness to harm the defamed person. National legislation should aim at the respect of these common rules, which would also be applied to cases involving media professionals as well as ordinary citizens. 48. In this perspective, the concept that States should intervene in cases of such violations should progressively be abandoned in favour of mechanisms regulated by independent authorities (press councils, press ombudsperson), whose members possess expertise in related fields. These authorities will impartially evaluate the seriousness of violations and take decisions that would not put at risk the core values of freedom of expression. Recourse to the judiciary system would also be possible but jail sentences and disproportionate fines should totally be excluded for offences such as defamation. 49. Governments’ attitude on defamation legislation is often ambiguous and seems to indicate that, despite a trend toward decriminalizing defamation and libel, Governments intend to maintain a grasp on media freedom of criticism. As a matter of fact, a number of countries, while reforming or abolishing legislation on defamation, have introduced norms on “disinformation”, which would often be applied to cases formerly treated as defamation cases. 50. Moreover, State institutions often appear to have different perceptions toward defamation, and consequently do not act in a consistent manner. Typically, in a number of countries the judiciary, including the supreme court, continue to condemn media professionals to prison sentences while the legislative and executive powers have been debating and ultimately approving new norms on reduction of the gravity of sentences, often excluding prison sentences. In other countries, especially those in which the judiciary is, to a great extent, independent from the Government, the judiciary tends to a have a lenient approach while judging defamation cases. 51. Unfortunately, imprisonment for journalists on defamation charges or following a conviction for defamation, heavy fines and/or the suspension of the licence of the media involved are still common and gravely hinder media freedom, especially for medium or small media enterprises, or even single professionals, who cannot afford expensive judicial procedure. In many countries, imprisoned journalists are treated like ordinary criminals and preventive detention is widely used to deter criticism of political figures, or of people closely linked to the power. 52. Political personalities and public figures, including media owners, continue to sue journalists although they should, because of their institutional role, be ready to accept criticism and public screening in a greater measure than the ordinary citizen should. An increased level of transparency from political elites would also help in the promotion of frank and well-grounded debate, without excessive confrontation, on significant issues.