A/HRC/10/23 page 13 the law - particularly in rural and war-affected areas, the ominous influence of warlords, local commanders and other local power-holders, and failure to ensure a secure environment for courts, victims and witnesses continue to undermine the independence and impartiality of the judicial authorities. 47. Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms (such as jirga and shura), though not recognized in the Constitution, are widely resorted to, especially in rural areas; this is due, in part, to limited access to, and confidence in, formal justice institutions. Although there are positive elements in traditional mechanisms in terms of community cohesion and accessibility, there are serious concerns with respect to due-process requirements, in particular for women, children and vulnerable groups. 48. Nevertheless, some positive developments have been noted, such as the drafting of a Bill on the Elimination of Violence against Women, in which the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and civil society organizations have been involved. The Ministry of Justice’s recent initiative to establish a State-funded legal aid system and the establishment of the Bar Association represent another important step forward. These measures should enhance the safeguarding of rights of defendants and the provision of legal representation for the most vulnerable. 49. Addressing impunity and further strengthening the rule of law is a priority in Afghanistan. There is a need for mechanisms, such as the advisory panel for appointments envisaged in the Action Plan for Peace, Justice and Reconciliation, to prevent those accused of having committed serious crimes from obtaining senior government posts. The forthcoming elections also present an opportunity for Afghans to take further steps to prevent persons accused of having committed serious offences under domestic and international law contesting seats in the Parliament. VI. DEFICITS IN DEMOCRACY A. Freedom of expression 50. The ability of media actors, civil society groups and other Afghan citizens to freely express their opinions and thoughts came under attack across Afghanistan throughout 2008. National and provincial government officials, anti-Government elements and different power-brokers all sought to restrict freedom of expression. Police and prosecutors generally proved ineffective at protecting freedom of expression given their apparent collusion with those in positions of power. The judiciary has not consistently provided protection, and, at times, has also been a factor in restricting the right to express opinions. Freedom of expression is often presented as threatening existing power structures, national security interests or Islamic values. Afghanistan’s increasingly repressive and closed society has triggered self-censorship throughout the country and stifled criticism and debate. 51. Threats, intimidation and attacks persisted against journalists and others expressing opinions deemed unwelcome, as did attempts to stifle critical reporting on corruption and other issues deemed “sensitive”. For instance, an Afghan radio-television presenter was dismissed by the Ministry of Information and Culture in May 2008 after he stated on television that freedom