A/HRC/44/49/Add.1 31. The Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation adopted in March 2020 is touted by many as a solution to hateful online posts. However, the Special Rapporteur is seriously concerned that too often these laws fall short of international standards and are misused by authorities. 32. International law provides that States have the obligation to prohibit advocacy of national, racial and religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence (art. 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), not necessarily to criminalize it. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that the Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation criminalizes the dissemination of disinformation. Such restrictions could therefore undermine public debate and the free flow of information, which is protected by international human rights law. Further, the Special Rapporteur notes that, too often, investigation and prosecution for “hate speech” or “disinformation” provides a new platform for speakers to restate their hateful expression and pretend to be at the mercy of State-run justice, thus amplifying their hateful message. The Special Rapporteur is convinced that numerous other steps – especially regular public messages from high-level officials and community leaders about the danger of hate speech, media literacy, professional training and self-regulation, and implementation of existing criminal provisions on incitement to violence – could be taken to confront these problems. The newly created Ministry of Peace, which works collaboratively with elders and community and religious leaders, could also play a role in promoting societal dialogue and a culture based on knowledge, tolerance and mutual understanding. 33. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that the Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation does not provide the structured guidance necessary to limit its application to expressions prohibited by article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This law defines hate speech in its article 2 (2) as “speech that deliberately promotes hatred, discrimination or attack against a person or a discernible group of identity, based on ethnicity, religion, race, gender or disability”. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that this definition is overbroad, does not meet the requirements of article 20 of the Covenant and goes beyond the limitations on restrictions required under article 19 (3) of the Covenant. There is a high risk that its application will result in arbitrary interpretation, with dire consequences for legitimate expression. 34. In particular, the Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation could lead to penalties being imposed on those who merely repost or otherwise share content deemed to be “hate speech” or “disinformation”. The scope of such an approach could be enormous, which is particularly concerning as the problem of hate speech is often not merely the content but its virality and the ease by which it may be shared by hundreds or thousands of people. This is also concerning given that the law carries penalties of Br 50,000 to 100,000 (about $1,500 to $3,000), in addition to providing for a maximum prison sentence of three years, which appear to be very significant sanctions. However, the Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that forms of punishment other than financial penalties and imprisonment are provided for in the law. Second, the law’s excessive vagueness means that officials at the federal and regional levels would have practically unbounded discretion to determine whom to investigate and prosecute, resulting almost certainly in enforcement leading to a wave of arbitrary arrests and prosecutions. Third, there is a serious risk that the law may be used to silence critics. Given the ethnic representation within political parties and within general governance at the national and regional levels, numerous individuals whom the Special Rapporteur met shared their fear that political debate and minority voices might be penalized under the new law. 35. The Special Rapporteur would like to encourage consideration of an approach to “hate speech” that is rooted in applicable international human rights standards. While article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights obligates States to prohibit advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement, the State also remains constrained by the standards of legality, necessity and proportionality, and legitimacy, under article 19 (3) of the Covenant.12 In his most recent report to the General Assembly on online hate speech (A/74/486), the Special Rapporteur referred extensively to Human Rights Council 12 10 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression.