A/HRC/32/48 consequence, the courts regularly approve the injunctions without even taking actual media content into consideration. 30. Pluralism of the media and freedom of expression will play a crucially important role in the parliamentary elections to be held in September 2016. The recommendations made by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of OSCE about media governance in its reports on the previous parliamentary elections, in 2012 and the presidential election in 20154 remain to be implemented. 31. In July and August 2015, seven journalists were fined for having cooperated with foreign mass media without accreditation. On 12 January 2016, journalist Larysa Shchyrakova was punished by a fine under article No. 22.9 of the Administrative Code. Kanstantsin Zhukouski, a freelance journalist, was tried in absentia and ordered to pay a large fine by the Kalinkavichy District Court.5 32. A worrying development was reflected in a recent statement by the Minister for the Interior, who claimed on 1 March 2016 that some media could be characterized as having launched an “information war” against the police, which, would therefore respond by all legal means, including legal actions. 33. Similarly, when on 2 March 2016 the Minister for Information received two journalists who presented him with an appeal signed by 156 people to protest against police violence towards journalists, he referred to the case of Pavel Dobrovolskiy, and justified the police actions against him. 34. The Special Rapporteur recalls that the harassment of journalists has been a constant practice by the regime, and recommended that judicial authorities cease these practices (see A/70/313). The statements made by the Ministers do not reflect any change in approach. As shown in the above cases, harassment can come in the form of arbitrary arrests, administrative searches, the confiscation of working tools and materials, fines, tax inspections or a summons for questioning. 35. The above-mentioned practices of intimidation by legal action against journalists had already been noted in 2010, when at its first universal periodic review, it was recommended that Belarus review its national legislation to ensure compliance with the freedom of expression, and ensure that the freedom and independence of the press were in line with European and international standards (A/HRC/15/16, paras. 98.27 – 98.32). 36. Five years later, during the second cycle of the universal periodic review, recommendations were again made that the State review its legislation to guarantee greater respect for the freedom of expression (A/HRC/ 30/3, paras. 129.57 – 129.65). Belarus was called upon to improve the overall situation of media freedom, and to amend the law on mass media to bring it into line with international standards and with the recommendations made by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. 37. The Special Rapporteur has made numerous recommendations regarding freedom of opinion and expression, especially on the freedom of the media, in his most recent report to the General Assembly (A/70/313), which focused on the issue. 38. It is significant that, in its report on the presidential election in 2015, the election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights recommended that the authorities reconsider the requirement for accreditation and allow 4 5 8 See OSCE, “Belarus, Parliamentary Elections, 23 September 2012: Final Report”, 14 December 2012, and “Belarus, Presidential Elections, 11 October 2015: Final Report”, 28 January 2016. See Viasna Human Rights Center, “Human Rights Situation in Belarus in 2015: Analytical review”.