A/HRC/44/49/Add.2 least three problems that may be framed as concerns about the legality condition. First, legislation often employs broad terms that grant authorities significant discretion to restrict expression and provide individuals with limited guidance about the lines dividing lawful from unlawful behaviour. Second, legislative processes often do not give adequate time for public engagement or fail to address human rights obligations of the State. Third, laws often do not provide courts or other independent third-party reviews with the authority necessary to evaluate claims of violations.53 25. For instance, in Cuba, Decree 349, which took effect in December 2018, contains vague and excessively broad restrictions on artistic expression that additionally do not meet the criteria of legitimate objective, necessity and proportionality required by international human rights law. It prohibits audio-visual materials that contain, among other things, the “use of patriotic symbols contrary to current legislation” (article 3a), “vulgar or obscene” language (article 3d), and any other content that “violates the legal provisions that regulate the normal development of our society in cultural matters” (article 3g). Furthermore, it criminalizes “the commercialization of books whose content is detrimental to ethical and cultural values” (Article 4f). Under the Decree, the authorities also have the power to immediately suspend a presentation and cancel an authorization to perform (all artists have to request authorization to the Ministry of Culture to perform in public or private spaces). Those decisions can only be appealed to the same Ministry of Culture (article 10); the decree does not provide an effective remedy to appeal that decision to an independent body, including through the courts.54 B. Legitimacy 26. Some States impose restrictions in pursuit of objectives not permitted by article 19 (3). As the Human Rights Committee has emphasized, Article 19 precludes invoking a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multiparty democracy, democratic tenets and human rights55. Both the Inter-American and the European Courts of Human Rights have also noted serious concern at such restrictions.56 27. States often present justifications that identify limitations other than those permitted by article 19 (3) or required by article 20.57 In Thailand, the Third Committee of Film and Video Censorship Board of the Ministry of Culture issued a banning order prohibiting the distribution of the film Shakespeare Must Die, stating that the Board deemed that the movie “has content that causes disunity among the people of the nation.” Article 23 of the Royal Edict on Film and Video states that “film producers must proceed in their filmmaking in a way that does not sabotage or contradict peace and order and good morality of the people or may adversely affect the security and the patriotic dignity of the Thai nation.” 58 Article 19, however, does not permit restrictions merely on the basis of such vague concepts as national disunity or patriotic dignity. 28. Blasphemy and similar laws: Artistic expression is frequently prohibited by States when the art is deemed insulting to religious feeling. This includes “governments restricting artistic freedom on the rationale of hurting or insulting religious feelings in which work featuring LGBTI themes, reinterpretations of religious deities, signs of nudity, sexuality, and criticisms [are] subjected to charges of blasphemy.”59 The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has emphasized that the right to freedom of religion or belief has sometimes 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 10 Report on contemporary challenges to freedom of expression, A/71/373, ¶12. Communication to Cuba, OL CUB 2/2019, 12 June 2019; PEN Artists at Risk Connection. Art Under Pressure: Decree 349 Restricts Creative Freedom in Cuba. General Comment 34, ¶23. Report on contemporary challenges to freedom of expression, A/71/373, 26. See, for example, IACtHR, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, Judgment of 31 August 2004. Series C No. 111; and ECtHR, Şener v. Turkey, Application No. 26680/95, Judgment of 18 July 2000. Report on contemporary challenges to freedom of expression, A/71/373, ¶27. Communication to Thailand, THA 2/2013, 15 March 2013. Freemuse, Dr. Srirak Plipat, Letter to Special Rapporteur on Freemuse Annual Report – the State of Artistic Freedom 2020, 29 May 2020.