A/HRC/44/49/Add.1 legislation explicitly recognizes that Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 had produced a negative effect on the rights and freedoms of individuals. However, he remains concerned by some provisions of the new law that may hinder freedom of expression. In June 2019, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, raised concerns about the definitions of “terrorism” and “incitement” contained in the new law, which he considers to have the potential to stifle legitimate expression. 11 Moreover, the Special Rapporteur is concerned at the harsh punishment provided in the law, which allows for a minimum of 15 years and up to life in prison or even the death penalty. While noting that some safeguards have been put in place to protect the expression of political dissent, the Special Rapporteur urges the Government to reconsider this provision in light of the previous law’s role in arresting and detaining opposition leaders and journalists exercising legitimate forms of expression. Facing the possibility of capital punishment may have an extreme chilling effect on the work of these individuals. The death penalty has long been regarded as an extreme exception to the fundamental right to life and must therefore be interpreted in the most restrictive manner. The Special Rapporteur refers to Human Rights Committee general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, in which the Committee made it clear that any such sanctions could only be imposed for the most serious crimes, and that they must be read restrictively and be subject to a number of strict conditions, notably respect for the fair trial guarantees provided for in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In fact, the Special Rapporteur has concerns over certain provisions of the new law and warns against it being used in a similar manner to its predecessor. 28. Further, the Special Rapporteur is seriously concerned by reports received that individuals continued to be arrested under the 2009 law while the Government was working on the new legislation. During the visit, the Government confirmed the use of the 2009 law during the reform process, including against members of the political opposition and against journalists following the Amhara Region coup plot of June 2019. Several interlocutors that the Special Rapporteur met expressed worry at the use of this restrictive legislation while the successor legislation was under discussion, which they consider eroded public confidence in the reform process. The Special Rapporteur calls upon the authorities to ensure that the new law is strictly applied to the crime of terrorism and that surveillance is constrained by law and subjected to independent, preferably judicial, oversight. B. Confronting intolerance and discrimination 29. Throughout the visit, interlocutors repeatedly raised concerns about the threat of ethnic division and intolerance. Many expressed grave concern that such divisions could lead to violence and thus threaten Ethiopia’s ongoing reform, undermine social and political stability, and trigger massive internal displacement. Although the new administration acknowledges the need for deep change, several interlocutors raised concerns that police forces continued to employ the same tactics in the face of demonstrations and clashes. National police authorities assured the Special Rapporteur of the Government’s commitment to managing demonstrations in accordance with international standards. Both the federal and regional governments must work to prevent violence, but they should do so while protecting and promoting the independent voices of activists and journalists. 30. The introduction of social media to the country’s political discourse has amplified the voices of many, facilitating freedom of expression. At the same time, the country has witnessed several tragedies in response to the amplification of misinformation and fear. The need to counter what many consider “hate speech” and various forms of disinformation in the media, including the print and broadcast media and digital and social media, took on heightened immediacy and gravity as they became entangled with violence and tragic loss. 11 See https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile? gId=24664. 9