A/HRC/26/30 28. The importance of ensuring access to the media as part of the electoral process is also well-established in a number of regional human rights instruments. The South African Development Community Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections, for example, reiterate that, in the conduct of democratic elections, all political parties should have access to State media (principle 2.1.5). The same principle is enshrined in article 17 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, on the importance of ensuring access by political candidates and parties to State-controlled media during elections. The Declaration of Principles of Freedom of Expression in Africa also affirms that “the public service ambit of public broadcasters should be clearly defined and include an obligation to ensure that the public receive adequate, politically balanced information, particularly during election periods” (art. VI). 29. The need for a vibrant and critical debate, with no restrictions on the form or content of political expression, has been explored in depth by the European Court of Human Rights, which has emphasized that “the limits of permissible criticism are wider with regard to the Government than in relation to a private citizen, or even a politician”.14 The State authorities may adopt, “in their capacity as guarantors of public order”, penalties for defamation that are proportionate to the injury but only where the accusations are “devoid of foundation or formulated in bad faith”.15 The reference to public order suggests that discretion of a government to restrict potentially defamatory statements against it should be limited to situations in which public order is threatened: While freedom of expression is important for everybody, it is especially so for an elected representative of the people. He represents his electorate, draws attention to their preoccupations and defends their interests. Accordingly, interferences with the freedom of expression of an opposition member of parliament, like the applicant, call for the closest scrutiny on the part of the Court.16 30. United Nations human rights mechanisms have also considered the permissible limitations upon speech in the context of electoral processes. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has noted that “the fundamental right to freedom of expression does not protect the dissemination of ideas of racial superiority or incitement to racial hatred”.17 In a recent review, the Committee underlined that the fundamental right of freedom of expression should not subtract from the principles of equality and non-discrimination as the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities, among which is the obligation not to disseminate ideas on racial superiority or hatred.18 31. The Committee recommended that the State inter alia reinforce the mandate of the authority which monitors the media to ensure that racist statements are prosecuted and victims granted reparations; ensure that the media do not stigmatize, stereotype or negatively target non-citizens and ethnic minorities; invite the media to strictly respect the Charter of Rome (2008) in order to avoid racist, discriminatory or biased language; and raise awareness among media professionals of their responsibility not to disseminate prejudice and to avoid reporting in a way that would stigmatize communities subject to historical discrimination. 14 15 16 17 18 Castells v. Spain (see footnote 8), para. 46. Ibid., para. 46. Ibid., para. 42. CERD/C/ITA/CO/16-18, para. 17. Ibid., para. 17 (a). 9