A/HRC/9/25 page 11 “ensure the protection and security of religious groups which may be targeted and which should be entitled to practice their religions freely and without any obstacles, including those created by non-State actors” (para. 113). 42. In their first joint declaration in 1999, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression noted that many countries have legislation, such as criminal defamation laws, which unduly restrict the right to freedom of expression. They encouraged States to review these laws and harmonize them in accordance with their international obligations.10 43. In their joint declaration made in 2000 they noted that the abuse of restrictive defamation and libel laws had reached “crisis proportions in many parts of the world”.11 They recommended minimum standards that should be followed in the development of defamation laws, among which: (a) the repeal of criminal defamation laws in favour of civil laws should be considered, in accordance with relevant international standards; (b) no one should be liable under defamation law for the expression of an opinion; and (c) civil sanctions for defamation should not be so heavy as to exert a chilling effect on freedom of expression, and should be designed to restore the reputation harmed, not to compensate the plaintiff or to punish the defendant. 44. The joint declaration made in 2000 also endorsed the ARTICLE 19 document “Defining Defamation: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation”, principle 2 of which, on the legitimate purpose of defamation laws, states that such laws cannot be justified if their purpose or effect is to protect the “reputation” of objects such as the State, the nation, religious symbols, flags or national insignia, or on grounds of public order, national security, or friendly relations with foreign States or Governments.12 The three mandate-holders issued another joint declaration in 2002, in which they reiterated that “criminal defamation is not a justifiable restriction on freedom of expression; all criminal defamation laws should be abolished and replaced, where necessary, with appropriate civil defamation laws”.13 45. On 19 December 2006, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted a declaration which addressed several issues, including freedom of expression and cultural and religious tensions. The declaration noted that “governments should refrain from introducing legislation which makes it an offence simply to exacerbate social tensions. Although it is legitimate to 10 http://www.cidh.org/Relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=141&lID=1. 11 http://www.cidh.org/Relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=142&lID=1. 12 Article 19, Defining Defamation: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation, July 2000. 13 http://www.cidh.org/Relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=87&lID=1.