A/HRC/41/35/Add.1 Special Rapporteurs also welcome the announced resolution, championed by the Office of the Ombudsperson, that will lead to the Office issuing general guidelines for dealing with requests for access to public information. It is imperative that the various government bodies have a standard process for responding to access to information requests in a manner that is compatible with international human rights. In tandem with such processes, government agencies should ensure full training of civil servants about the need to be responsive to requests for information, in accordance with article 8 of the organic law on transparency and access to public information. 53. The Special Rapporteurs noted that Ecuador does not protect whistle-blowers as a matter of law or practice. The Government should protect any person who discloses information that he or she reasonably believes, at the time of disclosure, to be true and to constitute a threat or harm to a specified public interest, such as a violation of national or international law, abuse of authority, waste, fraud or harm to the environment, public health or public safety. Protecting whistle-blowers creates an enabling environment for freedom of information, investigative journalism and the fight against corruption. The Special Rapporteurs recommend adopting legislation to protect whistle-blowers and were encouraged to learn of a proposed anti-corruption law that would be including such protection. F. Protection of freedom of expression online 54. In the past decade, the Internet was used in Ecuador as a space for attacking journalists and critics. Some of the strategies were systematic, such as the hiring of a company to request that the main platforms take down politically critical accounts and content, alleging infringement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of the United States of America; distributed denial of service; and attempts to reveal the identity of anonymous users. The previous President also created a network to expose and register social media users critical of his Government, and the State reportedly procured malware from the Hacking Team company during this period. 55. The Special Rapporteurs appreciate the fact that no action has been taken on the bills presented to the National Assembly in recent years with the aim of exercising government control over social networks. However, they remain concerned that the bill on regulating acts of hate and discrimination on social networks and the Internet, introduced by the previous President the day before his departure from office, has not been definitively shelved to date. 56. The Special Rapporteurs note that the attack and blocking of accounts has reportedly decreased since 2017. However, during the visits, civil society organizations, journalists and media outlets reported several cases of limitations on freedom of expression on the Internet, including the suspension or blocking of Twitter accounts, such as in the cases of Fernando Villavicencio and the satirist who wrote under the name of “Crudo Ecuador”, as well as distributed denial-of-service attacks on opinion or investigative journalism portals, following political publications and in the context of existing polarization. Civil society organizations also reported an increase in attacks on vulnerable groups on social networks, in particular attacks based on xenophobia, homophobia and misogyny. 57. The Special Rapporteurs note that there are also institutional issues that Ecuador will need to address in order to ensure a future of non-discrimination for content and content providers. Currently, for instance, the agency for the regulation and oversight of telecommunications, which is also responsible for Internet issues, is a subsidiary body of the ministry responsible for telecommunications, with its directors appointed by the President. To ensure against claims of politicization, the Government should reform the Organic Law on Telecommunications to ensure the independence of this regulatory body, clarifying its position as an independent agency and ensuring multi-stakeholder roles in appointing its directors. There is also a distinct lack of clarity concerning the Government’s commitment to network neutrality, which is protected by law but also left uncertain by article 64 of the telecommunications law, which permits variable tariff plans by Internet service providers. 12