A/HRC/44/49/Add.3 the law as adopted is 3 years not five and furthermore, the law gives courts the discretion to avoid penalizing a convict with incarceration to the extent they believe that the objective of correcting the offender could be served through other means. So, punishment other than financial penalties and imprisonment is provided for within the law. 18. Paragraph 39 line 4, it is reported that thousands of imprisoned journalists were released. It is with utter dismay we report back to the SR that there has never been a report from the government or any other body for that matter claiming this number of journalists were in prison. We are of the view that, these kinds of statements have a negative repercussion. Practically, cases are tried before a court of law while fulfilling due process and it is only when charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt that convictions are taken. We would like to confirm once again that citizens have a constitutionally protected right to choose whatever profession they want for their calling and no one has been arrested for exercising journalism as it will be against article 41 (2) of the FDRE constitution which guarantees everyone to have the right to choose his/her occupation and profession. According to article 25 of the FDRE constitution, all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. The phrase encapsulated in this paragraph of the report will provide shield and harm this principle. In this regard, the government of Ethiopia clearly states its unwavering commitment to preserve this principle and whenever and wherever there is a criminal responsibility, it will continue to take commensurate measures within the bounds of the law. 19. Paragraph 43 - the SR concludes that the failure of the Government of Ethiopia to allow access to information appears to amount a substantial violation of the right to information. While we agree that a lot remains to be done to fully implement the right of access to information, it should be noted that in the post April 2018 period, the government has significantly improved access to information by opening up the various government agencies and ensuring continued access to information formal structure in the government such as the press secretariat and through print, broadcast and social media outreach. We find the assessment of the SR in this regard to be sweeping and fails to take into account significant steps taken to improve access to information. 20. Paragraph 51 and 52- With respect to the statement that the government shuts internet without an obvious legal basis, we would kindly request the special rapporteur to observe to the following points. First, according to proclamation no 808/2013 which reestablishes Information Network Security Agency, the agency among others is vested with the power to keep the country safe from any threats against national security and it can take measures when the necessity arises. Further can be looked into article 6 of this proclamation which details the powers and functions of the agency. Second, the FDRE constitution is progressive in recognizing the right to freedom of information. Under article 29 (2), it has guaranteed a freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Moreover, under the same article sub article 3, access to information of public interest is guaranteed. However, as it is enshrined under international law governing the subject whom Ethiopia is also a party to, clearly specified that these rights are not absolute and derogations with in the established scope are permissible. The limits Ethiopia have incorporated under article 29 (6) of the constitution are verbatim of those specified under article 19 of UDHR and article 19 sub article 3 of ICCPR. In conclusion, we would like to reaffirm that these measures are exercised seldom with maximum restraint and are solely confined to the requirements of legality, legitimacy, necessity and proportionality. 6