A/HRC/41/35/Add.1 appreciate the elimination of the control over media content exercised by the Superintendency of Information and Communications (the State’s former content regulator), the repeal of a series of restrictive provisions on freedom of the press and expression, the barring of indirect measures or mechanisms that may affect this right, and the prohibition of all prior censorship, as well as the establishment of media self-regulation to handle issues of journalistic ethics. 20. Despite these advances, some provisions in the new law warrant reservations under international standards. The Special Rapporteurs note that articles 16 and 17 amend articles 23 and 24 of the original law, granting the rights of correction and of reply to any person affected by media publications. The text adopted provides for the broad and unrestricted exercise of those rights, such that journalists and the media are not in a position to understand their scope and content for the purpose of determining when it is proper to invoke them. In addition, the adopted text essentially maintains article 42 of the 2013 text, which imposes mandatory qualification requirements. The Special Rapporteurs urge the State to take a functional approach to the protection of the practice of journalism and to remove any restrictions on such practice. 21. Furthermore, article 89, relating to article 108 of the 2013 text, establishes the modalities for the allocation of frequencies as follows: (a) direct allocation of frequencies for public media, only when available frequencies are requested; (b) competitive public process for private and community media when the demand for access to frequencies is greater than the availability. On this point, the Special Rapporteurs underline that the State must regulate this provision according to the international standards in the field and respecting the reservation of the spectrum in order to ensure access to community media. 22. The Special Rapporteurs recall that the allocation of frequencies must be guided by democratic criteria and pre-established, public and transparent procedures that can check the potential arbitrariness of the State and guarantee equal opportunities for all persons and sectors concerned. 23. In addition, the eighth transitional provision establishes an automatic renewal of radio and television frequency concessions granted under the law prior to its reform, subject to technical and legal reports from the regulatory authority. The aforementioned provision was cause for concern and rejection by the Coalición de Comunicación Comunitaria y Medios Comunitarios. In order to ensure a transparent and fair process, the Special Rapporteurs urge the State to refrain from using a process whereby current frequencies are automatically renewed. Finally, the Special Rapporteurs welcome the addition of article 42 (1), on the protection of media workers. However, they note that the article contains a general formula that requires robust implementation and the provision of resources by other levels of government. 24. The Special Rapporteurs take note that the President presented his partial objection to the bill approved by the National Assembly last December and exercised his power to veto articles 1, 8, 14, 23, 25, 32, 36 to 39, 41, 66, 69, 71, 77, 79, 82, 87 to 89 and 93, the third, fifth, sixth and eighth transitional provisions, and the repealing provision. They proposed modifications to several of the provisions above in the communication sent to the authorities in January 2019. The President also referred to the legislative branch a bill to amend article 5 of the law, which had not been modified in the amendments approved by the National Assembly, maintaining the concept of communications as a public service. However, several civil society organizations expressed reservations about some of the solutions presented by the President. 2. Penal code 25. The Special Rapporteurs received information on the prosecution of journalists, media outlets and citizens by public officials on the basis of charges such as criminal defamation. According to information received during the visits, such prosecution is due to the vagueness of the provisions contained in the new Comprehensive Criminal Code, enacted in 2014. The Special Rapporteurs note that while the Code reflects substantial progress by decriminalizing “crimes of contempt” and eliminating the offence of criminal insult, it still criminalizes slander, with a formulation that is incompatible with international 6