A/HRC/20/17 (iii) it must be proven as the least restrictive and proportionate means to achieve the purported aim. 82. Moreover, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application. 1. Defamation 83. Defamation laws protect an individual’s reputation from false and malicious attacks, and constitute valid grounds for restricting freedom of expression. Nearly all countries have some form of defamation legislation, although different terms are used, such as libel, calumny, slander, insult, desacato, or lèse majesté. However, the problem with defamation cases is that they frequently mask the determination of political and economic powers to retaliate against criticisms or allegations of mismanagement or corruption, and to exert undue pressure on the media. 84. In particular, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned that defamation remains classified as a criminal offence rather than a civil tort in many countries around the world. As he has emphasized on many occasions, criminal defamation laws are inherently harsh and have a disproportionate chilling effect on free expression. Individuals face the constant threat of being arrested, held in pretrial detention, subjected to expensive criminal trials, fines and imprisonment, as well as the social stigma associated with having a criminal record. 85. Even in countries where defamation is classified as a civil tort, the financial sanctions imposed may be high and disproportionate, which can bankrupt small and independent media and have adverse consequences on media freedom in a country. 86. Many journalists continue to inform the Special Rapporteur that the systematic use of unjustified criminal prosecution or even civil tort prosecution with disproportionate financial sanctions paralyzes journalistic investigation and generates an atmosphere of intimidation, which constitutes a form of judicial harassment. 87. The Special Rapporteur thus calls on all States to repeal criminal defamation provisions allowing prosecution of authors of media content, as well as to limit civil law penalties for defamation so that it is proportionate to the harm done. He emphasizes that criminal prosecution for defamation inevitably becomes a mechanism of political censorship, which contradicts freedom of expression and of the press. 88. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur underscores that public officials, including heads of State and public figures, must tolerate a higher degree of scrutiny than ordinary individuals because of their public functions, and should not be granted a higher level of protection against defamatory statements in media. 2. National security and counter-terrorism legislation 89. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that laws purported to protect national security or to counter terrorism continue to be used against journalists who report on sensitive or critical matters of public interest, or to force journalists to reveal their sources of information. 90. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes the importance of journalists’ right to access information, which is part of the right to seek and receive information under articles 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights, respectively. He would like to stress that Governments should classify only 15