A/HRC/14/23 to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social origin, property, birth or any other status; (l) All restrictions and limitations shall be interpreted in the light and context of the particular right concerned. Wherever doubt exists as to the interpretation or scope of a law imposing limitations or restrictions, the protection of fundamental human rights shall be the prevailing consideration. 80. The principles set out herein should be understood to be of an exceptional nature. They are suggested as a means of ensuring that States do not abuse restrictions or limitations for political ends and that the application of such restrictions or limitations does not cause other rights to be violated. The principles should be applied in a comprehensive manner. 81. The Special Rapporteur also wishes to stress that, as provided in paragraph 5 (p) of Human Rights Council resolution 12/16, restrictions on the following aspects of the right to freedom of expression are not permissible: (i) Discussion of government policies and political debate; reporting on human rights, government activities and corruption in government; engaging in election campaigns, peaceful demonstrations or political activities, including for peace or democracy; and expression of opinion and dissent, religion or belief, including by persons belonging to minorities or vulnerable groups; (ii) The free flow of information and ideas, including practices such as the banning or closing of publications or other media and the abuse of administrative measures and censorship; (iii) Access to or use of information and communication technologies, including radio, television and the Internet. 82. With regard to limitations on freedom of expression justified on the basis of the protection of other rights or the reputation of others, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that this justification must not be used to protect the State and its officials from public opinion or criticism. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that no criminal or civil action for defamation should be admissible in respect of a civil servant or the performance of his or her duties. In addition, all desacato laws should be repealed. 83. The Special Rapporteur believes that any attempt to criminalize freedom of expression as a means of limiting or censuring that freedom must be resisted. He therefore encourages all efforts to decriminalize acts considered to be acts of defamation and to make civil liability proceedings the sole form of redress for complaints of damage to reputation. However, civil penalties for defamation should not be so heavy as to block freedom of expression and should be designed to restore the reputation harmed, not to compensate the plaintiff or to punish the defendant; in particular, pecuniary awards should be strictly proportionate to the actual harm caused, and the law should give preference to the use of non-pecuniary remedies, including, for example, apology, rectification and clarification. 84. In addition, criminal defamation laws may not be used to protect abstract or subjective notions or concepts, such as the State, national symbols, national identity, cultures, schools of thought, religions, ideologies or political doctrines. This is consistent with the view, sustained by the Special Rapporteur, that international human rights law protects individuals and groups of people, not abstract notions or institutions that are subject to scrutiny, comment or criticism. 85. On this basis, and recalling the Joint Declaration issued by the International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression in 2008: “The concept of ‘defamation of religions’ does not accord with international standards regarding defamation, which refer GE.10-13049 15