A/HRC/44/49/Add.2 designed to guide parental decision-making – may helpfully inform parents. In those instances, States should ensure that (a) classification bodies are independent; (b) their membership includes representatives of the arts field; (c) their terms of reference, rules of procedure and activities are made public; and (d) effective appeal mechanisms are established. Particular attention should be paid to ensuring that the regulation of access by children does not result in prohibiting or disproportionately restricting access for adults. 36 17. Artistic freedom is especially at risk of prior censorship, through the banning of movies, books, public art, theatre plays. Demands for quick, automatic removals also risk new forms of prior restraint that already threaten creative endeavours in the context of copyright and the excessive filtering and blocking of online content. 37 Some States have established permanent censorship systems to control artistic work: in Egypt, for instance, the Ministry of Culture may give, deny or revoke permits required for artistic works and may oversee both the creation of an artwork and any future developments or change by its author.38 18. The Human Rights Committee has addressed artistic freedom in very few decisions.39 In 2004, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled in favour of a South Korean artist, HakChul Shin, whose painting had been confiscated by the government of the Republic of Korea. Hak-Chul Shin was convicted for the painting as it was deemed to be an “enemy-benefiting expression” contrary to the National Security Law. The Committee held that the painting was protected by Article 19(2) since it was an idea imparted “in the form of art.” The Committee also held that any State party that seeks to demonstrate that a form of expression protected by Article 19 poses a threat to one of the enumerated purposes listed in Article 19(3) must show in a “specific fashion” the precise nature of the threat.40 C. Regional human rights frameworks 19. Article 13 of the American Convention establishes the right of every person to freedom of expression, and specifies it encompasses the “freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice.” In its interpretation of the scope of the right to freedom of expression, the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACmHR) indicated that prior censorship “must be prohibited by law”.41 20. In one of its first judgments dealing with freedom of expression, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights addressed artistic expression. In the case “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile, the Court reviewed the prohibition imposed by the Chilean judicial authorities on the exhibition of the film The Last Temptation of Christ. The Court concluded that the Chilean authorities had engaged in an act of prior censorship, incompatible with Article 13 of the American Convention. Furthermore, the Court explained that the violation had taken place both by the judicial order in question, and by the existence in the Chilean Constitution of a system of prior censorship of cinematographic films. 42 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 8 Communication to Egypt, OL EGY 9/2015, 19 August 2015. See also A/69/335, 50 – 52. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, David Kaye, Report on content moderation A/HRC/38/35, 6 April 2018, 17 (hereinafter Report on Content Moderation A/HRC/38/35). Communication to Egypt, OL EGY 9/2015, 19 August 2015. Sarah Joseph, Art and human rights law, in ‘Research Handbook on Art and Law’ Jani McCutcheon and Fiona McGaughey (eds), UWA Law School, The University of Western Australia, Australia, 2020. Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 926/2000, Shin v. Republic of Korea, 16 March 2004. IACmHR, Inter-American Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, October 2000, 1. IACtHR., Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile. February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73. ¶64. See especially the arguments of the Commission in the case: IACmHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile,p. 11-12 http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/olmedobu/demanda.PDF.