A/HRC/28/8 64. New Zealand welcomed recent elections, the successful first sitting of Parliament and the ILO direct contacts mission. The situation of human rights defenders was a concern. It noted investigations into violence in custody and the reconvening of the Fiji Law Society. It made recommendations. 65. Norway noted that the Constitution enshrined the principles of equality, nondiscrimination and an independent judiciary and established the rights of indigenous Fijians. The September elections had been a significant step. An active role for Fiji in the Human Rights Council would be welcomed. Norway made recommendations. 66. The Philippines noted the strengthening of democratic processes and protection for vulnerable groups. It asked whether resources for socioeconomic programmes had been allocated and how development partners could help. It also asked what barriers there were to the functioning of the judiciary and how the international community could provide assistance. It made a recommendation. 67. In response to the questions pertaining to the media and freedom of speech, of expression and of the press, Fiji stated that it did not accept the premise of the questions asked on the Media Industry Development Decree, since those questions had implied or stated outright that the media framework was restrictive and/or that there was censorship of the media. 68. Through its Bill of Rights, the Fijian Constitution unequivocally recognized freedom of the press as pivotal to the realization of freedom of speech, expression, thought, opinion and publication. 69. Fiji shared the concerns that had been voiced about the fact that repressive laws could severely restrict press freedom. Fiji had taken significant steps in securing greater rights and freedoms. However, no country guaranteed unfettered freedom without responsibility. While guaranteeing freedom of speech, expression, thought, opinion and of the press, the Constitution explicitly prohibited any speech, opinion or expression that was tantamount to war propaganda, incitement to violence or insurrection against the Constitution, or advocated hatred based on any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which included race, culture, ethnic or social origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity, language, economic, social or health status, disability, age and religion. Those limitations were also in line with general recommendation No. 35 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on combating racist hate speech. 70. The Fijian Constitution contained a definition of hate speech that was comparable to that in the German legal framework, given the history of religious and racial intolerance. Training to ensure that the media understood where to draw the line between free speech and limitations on free speech in accordance with international law, especially the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, was of paramount importance. 71. The Public Emergency Regulations had been revoked. The Media Industry Development Decree 2010, through a very progressive Media Code of Ethics and the Constitution, guaranteed the freedom of the press and protected the confidentiality of journalistic sources, in line with a decision of the European Court of Human Rights and article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also encouraged robust debate without inciting hatred and was consistent with the law on justifiable limitations to free speech under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention. It should be noted that the Media Code of Ethics in the Media Industry Development Decree 2010 had been copied verbatim from the Code of Ethics adopted by the previous self-regulated Media Council. 10