A/HRC/13/66 4. Right to freedom of expression 41. Freedom of expression was one of the most restricted rights under the emergency measures. Most media sided with one or the other side of the political spectrum, and their reporting was therefore usually partial. Few media tried to contribute to an independent, comprehensive picture of the crisis that included views from all parties. Some private media decided to cut programmes considered by the de facto authorities as critical. Many journalists admitted resorting to self-censorship to avoid restrictions or sanctions. 42. The right to inform and disseminate different opinions was severely restricted, which hindered access to credible information about the situation. Several media premises were occupied by the military and frequencies were frequently jammed or interrupted to prevent reporting on the crisis. These actions particularly damaged opposition media, such as Radio Globo, TV Channel 36, Radio Progreso and some international news channels. 43. Within the framework of controversial norms or illegal procedures under the emergency law and decrees, the authorities imposed other selective restrictions, such as limiting communication and the confiscation of equipment from TV Channel 36, Radio Globo and Radio La Catracha. This was based on decree 016-2009, and part of a CONATEL order to suspend operations, including the unplugging of systems and confiscation of equipment by the national police and armed forces, although the constitution prohibits the confiscation of media equipment and the interruption or closing down of media activities even during a state of emergency.17 During the period preceding the presidential election, interruptions by the authorities of TV Channel 36 broadcasts were also registered. 44. Journalists and people in the media business considered to be opponents of the de facto authorities were subjected to restrictions and harassment. The mission was informed that a member of the C-Libre NGO was fired from the HRN radio network, allegedly because he was against the coup. Some journalists complained that they were unable to express opinions opposed to the electoral process and of the existence of “prohibited” expressions such as “coup d’état”. They also feared being subject to repressive measures or judicial proceedings after the announcement of limitations to freedom of expression in the framework of the electoral process. In addition, some civil society organizations which had broadcasting contracts with media supporting the de facto Government stated that their programmes were cancelled or they were informed that their contracts were not being renewed. This was the case of three programmes by women’s organizations on Radio Cadena Voces, and of human rights NGOs on HRN. In addition, private companies and the State withdrew their advertising from those media supporting the FNRG, which seriously affected the availability of resources to ensure the continuation of programmes. However, long-standing problems such as the lack of transparency in the Government’s use of media space to broadcast official publicity were considered one of the main obstacles to freedom of expression in the country well before the coup. 45. Some journalists were ill-treated or arbitrarily or illegally detained by police agents while covering demonstrations. Their detention was not based on evidence of commission of a crime, or other legal grounds, and the purpose therefore appeared to be to prevent them from reporting on the protests. Such was the case of journalists from El Tiempo newspaper in Tegucigalpa on 5 August, and journalists from Tela and Radio Progreso in El Progreso on 14 August. According to the information provided to the mission, cellphones, and photo and video cameras were confiscated. The human rights unit of the Fiscalía informed the mission of the filing of formal charges against the military occupation of Radio Progreso 17 GE.10-11700 Articles 73 and 187. 11