A/HRC/2/6 page 16 65. Legal measures may be supplemented by a number of non-legal measures, including selfregulatory measures by media bodies, media outlets or journalists’ associations to prevent the dissemination of harmful speech. In many countries, media sectors, in particular newspapers and journalists, have formed self-regulatory bodies to promote professional standards and in some cases to provide the public with a complaints system for reporting which fails to meet minimum standards. In many cases, these standards include rules relating to reporting on matters involving race. 66. The International Federation of Journalists, for example, has adopted a Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists.58 Principle 7 states that: The journalist shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media, and shall do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on, among other things, race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins. 67. Awareness-raising, directed at both the media specifically and the general public, is another important social means of addressing racist speech. In its General Recommendation No. 29, focusing on descent-based discrimination, CERD called on States Parties to “take measures to raise awareness among media professionals of the nature and incidence of descentbased discrimination”.59 IV. PRACTICAL ISSUES OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT 68. As noted above, incitement may be to a particular illegal act – violence or discrimination – or simply to a state of mind. The notion of “hatred” is extremely vague and not defined either in international instruments or in the decisions of international courts. It is therefore problematic from the perspective of the provided by element of prescription by law in the test for restrictions on freedom of expression. 69. Unlike incitement to an act, it is almost impossible to prove whether hatred per se is or is not likely to result from the dissemination of certain statements. Regular evidentiary techniques may be employed to assess the risk of a particular illegal act occurring but these do not work well in assessing the risk of a purely psychological outcome. International courts have tended to avoid the issue and, instead, either simply conclude, perhaps after a cursory scan of the context, that the statements would be prone to have this result, or they focus on other factors, such as intent. 70. In this context, international law provides little with respect to the crucial question of how the law is to be implemented. This is a critical area because of its relevance to how the balance is struck between the need to protect equal rights of groups, on the one hand, and safeguarding freedoms of speech and association, for example.