Thematic Reports

Special Rapporteur: David Kaye

Date: 8 September 2015

Summary: This report focuses on the protection of sources and whistleblowers around the world.  It reviews national and international laws and practices and provides recommendations to improve available protections. Many States protect source confidentiality and whistleblowers as a matter of their domestic legal systems. Nonetheless, it is common for governments to restrict access to information and to penalize sources and whistleblowers, particularly in (but certainly not limited to) cases touching on national security and intelligence. The report draws a number of conclusions and urges States and international organizations to adopt or improve laws and practices – and to foster the necessary political and social environments – that provide genuine protection to sources and whistleblowers. Such protections should be adopted not only by governments but also international organizations such as the United Nations.

Special Rapporteur: David Kaye

Date: 22 May 2015

Summary: The report examines whether the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression protect secure online communications, specifically through encryption and anonymity, and to what extent may governments impose restrictions on encryption or anonymity. Encryption and anonymity tools allow individuals to protect their online privacy and exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression but can also interfere with the rights of others and make it difficult for law enforcement and intelligence services to investigate crimes. Permissible restrictions on the right to privacy must be read strictly. Restrictions on encryption and anonymity must meet a three-part test: (1) any limitation on expression must be provided for by law; (2) may only be imposed for legitimate grounds; and (3) must conform to strict tests of necessity and proportionality. States often fail to provide public justifications to support restrictions, thereby depriving the public the opportunity to measure whether restrictions on their online security would be justified by any real gains in national security and crime prevention. States should promote, not restrict, strong encryption and anonymity.

Special Rapporteur: Frank La Rue

Date: 2 July 2014

Summary: This report focuses on the importance of freedom of expression in electoral contexts while addressing common global challenges to implementation. In ensuring this freedom of expression, dedicated attention is to be afforded to the main actors in the political context: voters–who need to be able to receive fair and accurate information, and then to express their affiliations without fear; candidates and political organizations–who need to be able to campaign freely and spread their political messages without fear of attack; and the media–who need freedom of expression to accurately disseminate messages of competing parties. Among the numerous structural, legal, and practical barriers to equal enjoyment of freedom of expression during elections are: attack and criticism of voices of dissent by politically dominant groups, attacks and imprisonment of journalists who would equally disseminate information from all parties, and disparate economic power between parties such that the dominant groups can essentially buy the marketplace of ideas. To help establish and maintain freedom of expression in electoral contexts, countries should follow these core international human rights principles: promote pluralism in the media and ensure a plural political debate, ensure transparency in the promotion and financing of political campaigns, guarantee fair enforcement of political regulations to prevent those in power from dominating public debates.

Special Rapporteur: Frank La Rue

Date: 21 August 2014

Summary: This report focuses on children’s rights to freedom of expression, addressing the balance between children’s rights and the duty of authority figures to protect children from harmful information and interactions. Human rights norms call for a balanced approach where restrictions on communication conform to strict tests of necessity and proportionality. The report criticizes heavy-handed approaches by governments to restrict information available to children, especially in the educational context, in the name of protection. Children need access to information in order for them to develop the full extent of their personalities; this includes access to educational materials and materials about sexual identity. The report encourages training parents and teachers to guide and support children as they use social media and the internet so that the children can be protected while they mature, but also gain the benefit of new ideas and technologies. Too much restriction and mistrust of children can result in lack of critical thinking ability, isolation, and political alienation.

Special Rapporteur: Frank La Rue

Date: 17 April 2013

Summary: This report addresses State surveillance programs and their impact on privacy and freedom of opinion and expression, and highlights the urgent need to further study new surveillance methods and revise current national laws to comply with human rights standards. Technological advancements have caused the costs of technology and data storage to decline, making it easier for States to conduct surveillance of individuals. Methods of surveillance currently used by States include: (1) real-time interception of individuals’ phone calls, text messages, and internet activity, (2) mass communication surveillance and collection of communications data that can later be filtered and analyzed, (3) accessing communications data held by Internet service providers and other Internet companies, and (4) restrictions on anonymity. States have also utilized new technology to filter certain content, allowing States to censor any material with which it does not approve. In addition, national legislation has not kept pace with changes in technology. In many States, there is a lack of judicial oversight over surveillance programs, and States maintain unregulated access to communications data. Many States also implement broad surveillance programs under the vague notion of “national security.” Extra-legal surveillance methods, such as the use of offensive intrusion software, are still utilized by States even though these methods fall outside of existing legal frameworks. Other national legislation issues include mandatory data retention policies, identity disclosure laws, and restrictions on encryption. The private sector has also facilitated State surveillance in many ways including through collaboration with States to collect and store information. States not only have an obligation to respect and promote the rights to freedom of expression and privacy, but also to protect individuals from violations to these rights by corporate actors.

Special Rapporteur: Frank La Rue

Date: 4 September 2013

Summary: The right to access information is a central component of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression as defined in article 19 of the UDHR and ICCPR. Adequate access to information is vital for Democratic governance, especially through ensuring transparency, the accountability of public authorities, and the promotion of participatory decision-making processes. The right to have access to information encompasses not only the right of the public to have access to information of public interest from a variety of sources and the right of the media to access information, but also the right of individuals to request and receive information of public interest and information concerning themselves that may affect their individual rights. However, individuals seeking access to information on human rights violations have encountered a number of obstacles, including reluctance from State authorities to investigate violations and their refusal to disclose information on national security grounds. States have an obligation to put information of public interest in the public domain and to inform victims and their families, as well as society as a whole, about serious human rights violations. Furthermore, States are responsible for ensuring the judicial investigation of human rights violations, and that human rights violators are punished and the victims receive redress through the courts. Even still, States can place certain limitations on the right to access information. However, these limitations must: (1) be defined by a law that is accessible, concrete, clear and unambiguous, and compatible with the State’s international human rights obligations, (2) strictly conform to the tests for necessity and proportionality, and (3) be based on one of the grounds for limitations recognized by the ICCPR.

Special Rapporteur: Frank La Rue

Date: 4 June 2012

Summary: This report focuses on protection of journalists’ right to freedom of expression. While some of the most publicized instances of attacks on journalists occur during armed conflict, this report focuses on the daily, domestic challenges journalists face. Local journalists in many States are hindered by restrictions of their movement and transportation, arbitrary detainment and arrest, torture, illegal surveillance, information and equipment theft, intimidation, and harassment of their family members. Female journalists also face an increased danger of sexual violence.Journalists face these daily threats from both state actors, such as militias and security forces, and non-state actors, such as terrorists and members of organized crime. 2011 saw an increase in attacks on journalists, particularly during coverage of street protests and demonstrations. Shedding light on “inconvenient” topics such as human rights violations, drug trafficking, corruption, environmental issues, and organized crime have all resulted in attacks on journalists. The Special Rapporteur recommends that States condemn attacks on journalists, change unduly harsh defamation laws that chill journalists’ freedom of expression, and enact legal and civil protections that comport with international human rights norms.

Special Rapporteur: Frank La Rue

Date: 7 September 2012

Summary: This report focuses on the issue of hate speech, addressing the continuing challenge of identifying ways to reconcile the need to protect and promote the right to freedom of opinion and expression, on the one hand, and to combat intolerance, discrimination and incitement to hatred, on the other. At the time of this report, it was clear from discussions at four regional conferences that there was an unclear normative environment around this issue. This report aims to underline basic principles on international human rights law, identifying elements to be used in determining what kinds of expression would meet the threshold of “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Speech that meets this threshold should be publicly condemned by government officials and leaders.Because of the delicate balance States must strike in order to protect freedom of speech and opinion, but also to discourage hate speech, the Special Rapporteur recommends that States set high thresholds for what will count as hate speech. Vague laws, such as anti-blasphemy laws, tend to be overbroad and unnecessarily curb speech that might legitimately be used to foster open dialogue, such as important interfaith conversations. The Special Rapporteur urges States to conduct constitutional and legal reviews to ensure that domestic law on hate speech complies with the three-part test stipulated in article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, namely that: (1) the restriction must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone;(2) it must be proven as necessary and legitimate to protect the rights or reputation of others; (3) national security or public order, public health or morals; and it must be proven as the least restrictive and proportionate means to achieve the purported aim. Any breach of those principles should be subject to review by an independent court or tribunal.Laws against hate speech should be coupled with strong policies fostering tolerance and diversity of opinion, including policies that allow those groups who are the frequent targets of hate speech, to disseminate counterspeech.

Special Rapporteur: Frank La Rue

Date: 16 May 2011

Summary: The Internet has become a vital means by which individuals express themselves, and it is an important tool for ensuring access to information and citizen participation in building democratic societies. Recent events in the Middle East and North Africa region have shown the effectiveness of using the Internet as a tool to mobilize the population in demanding justice, equality, accountability, and respect for human rights. Safeguarding the benefits of the Internet requires that States facilitate access to the Internet for all individuals with as few restrictions as possible. The Internet as a means of expression and access to information is protected under Article 19 of the ICCPR and UDHR. The Internet’s unique characteristics, such as speed, worldwide reach, and anonymity, have caused fear amongst Governments, which has resulted in restrictions through the use of technology to block access to content, track and identify activists, and the criminalization of legitimate expression. Restrictions imposed by States on the right to freedom of expression and access to information through the Internet include: arbitrary blocking or filtering of content; criminalization of legitimate expression; imposition of intermediary liability; disconnecting users from Internet access, including on the basis of violations of intellectual property rights law; cyber-attacks; and inadequate protection of the right to privacy and data protection. Any State imposed content restrictions must be (1) prescribed by law, (2) pursue a legitimate purpose, and (3) respect the principles of necessity and proportionality. States also need to work towards eliminating the “digital divide” by ensuring that Internet access is widely available, accessible, and affordable to all individuals.

Special Rapporteur: Frank La Rue

Date: 10 August 2011

Summary: This report expands on the topics addressed in the Special Rapporteur’s previous report on freedom of expression on the Internet (A/HRC/17/27). Internet access has two important dimensions: (1) access to online content, without restriction unless allowed under international human rights law, and (2) availability of the necessary infrastructure. Both topics are equally important as some States may have the necessary infrastructure, but heavily restrict content, while other States may not impose many restrictions on Internet content, but still do not have the infrastructure in place to allow much of the country to access the Internet. The Internet as a means of expression and access to information is protected under Article 19 of the ICCPR and UDHR. Even still, there are a few exceptional types of content that States are required to prohibit under international law: (1) child pornography, (2) direct and public incitement to commit genocide, (3) advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and (4) incitement to terrorism. Any State imposed content restrictions must be prescribed by unambiguous law, pursue a legitimate purpose, and respect the principles of necessity and proportionality. All other types of content not mentioned above should not be criminalized, including defamation. Digital literacy, or possessing the necessary skills to make full use of the Internet, needs to be emphasized in schools, and States should ensure that individuals receive effective digital literacy training. States have a positive obligation to promote and facilitate freedom expression on the Internet. States should work with civil society and the private sector to make Internet widely available and affordable to all. A broadband connection is becoming increasingly necessary to access many types of online content, and States should actively promote and encourage broadband access. Developed States should also facilitate technology transfer to developing States and work towards eliminating the “digital divide.”

Special Rapporteur: Frank La Rue

Date: 20 April 2010

Summary:In this report, the Special Rapporteur examines the right to freedom of opinion and expression of groups in need of particular attention (women, children, those living in extreme poverty, minorities and indigenous peoples) and the role of freedom of expression in combating discrimination; permissible and impermissible limitations on the right to freedom of opinion and expression in international human rights law; and the protection of journalists and the freedom of the press.Generally, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that media has become increasingly privatized and thereby out of reach for some of the most vulnerable of the world’s population. The Special Rapporteur recommends that governments facilitate and subsidize access to electronic media in order to ensure that the poorest and most oppressed in society will have equitable enjoyment of this critical resource. Specifically, States should promote increased informational access for women in their States, as this will help achieve higher education and civil participation levels for women. Children, also, can use access to electronic media to develop critical thinking skills and education level. States should also promote media access among economically disadvantaged groups, as their access to information can enable them to learn new methods and technologies that can help them better their situations. It is also critical that the poorest in society are able to participate in government so that they can vote for parties and policies that can help improve their lives. Finally, States and the media generally should take steps to ensure that minority and indigenous groups have access to media and are represented among the members of the media. This access and freedom of expression can help combat racism and discrimination these groups often experience.

Special Rapporteur: Frank La Rue

Date: 25 March 2010

Summary: In the tenth anniversary year of the position of Special Rapporteur, This report identifies ten key challenges the global community must face in trying to ensure freedom of opinion and expression worldwide:
1. Mechanisms of government control over the media
2. Criminal defamation
3. Violence against journalists
4. Limits on the right to information
5. Discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression
6. Commercial pressures
7. Support for public service and community broadcasters
8. Security and freedom of expression
9. Freedom of expression on the Internet
10. Access to information and communications technology

Special Rapporteur: Frank La Rue

Date: 30 April 2009

Summary: Journalists and other media professionals who report from war-torn regions continue to face physical violence and threats.  Such media personnel are protected by numerous humanitarian laws, including Article 79 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. The law dictates that journalists and media professionals must be identified as civilians and consequently be afforded civilian protections in times of war. Also, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1738, which expressed its concern regarding the frequency of violent attacks against journalists and other media professionals. Moreover, peaceful protestors remain vulnerable to imprisonment for speaking out against their governments, and governments continue to apply defamation, libel, and slander law to silence such protestors. For instance, in Myanmar, a myriad of peaceful protestors were arbitrarily detained for over a year, received unfair trials and, sentenced to sixty-five years in prison. Furthermore, their defense attorneys were also at risk of imprisonment, and were prohibited from representing their clients. In fact, even long-term democracies continue to silence protestors.One of the few exceptions to the right to freedom of expression is incitement to discriminate. However, the question of what qualifies as incitement is a difficult question to answer. Unfortunately, states more commonly use the idea of incitement to draft law to prevent the right to freedom of expression. Therefore, more often than not, states abuse the concept of incitement. All laws must be proportional to the goal they are meant to achieve and be the least restrictive to the persons it governs. Additionally, decisions on such matters should be made by an independent judiciary to prevent government bias. Finally, the 2008 global financial crisis has greatly impacted many already impoverished persons. Such persons do not regularly play a role in social or political matters. As a result, such persons, more than ever, need access to information, and the media is an ideal way to disseminate such information.

Special Rapporteur: Ambeyi Ligabo

Date: 28 February 2008

Summary: Numerous governments around the world routinely arrest and imprison media professionals. Journalists then face charges of defamation, libel, and slander. Furthermore, numerous states have expanded defamation law to include things such as defamation of the reputation of the state, defamation of religion, and defamation of national leaders. These overly harsh defamation laws chill freedom of expression.States also need to take steps to ensure the safety of media during armed conflict.  Numerous journalists have been injured, kidnapped, or murdered while reporting in war-torn areas. For example, the Iraq War has taken the lives of a significant number of journalists. The Turkish journalist Hrant Dink was murdered for reporting on sensitive matters concerning the Turkish government. Additionally, journalists are experiencing the risk of injury and murder while covering electoral processes. Governments also regularly fine journalists significant amounts of money for reporting, and many journalists have had their media licenses suspended.Another ongoing problem is government censorship of the media. Governments are using indirect forms of censorship to hinder the right to freedom of expression. Numerous states have implemented burdensome processes for journalists to procure a media license, processes that are used as policy tools to control media output. This is preventing media outlets from reporting. Such practices also yield self-censorship.Likewise, major search engines are contributing to censorship. Many have complied with government requests to enforce strict regulations. This is seen even in large democratic states. Furthermore, there is a digital divide that currently keeps certain populations of people from their right to freedom of expression. This is because a large segment of people in numerous states are illiterate. Similarly, many persons are not proficient at using new technologies. These two issues prevent persons from using computers and the internet as an outlet for the right to freedom of expression.

Special Rapporteur: Ambeyi Ligabo

Date: 2 January 2007

Summary: Article 18 of the ICCPR protects the right of religion and beliefs, while Article 19 of the ICCPR protects the right of freedom of expression.  Both rights should be equally respected and applied. However, Article 19 has special duties: it requires good judgment, tolerance, and a sense of responsibility. Therefore, although one has the right of freedom of expression to convey his or her opinions on religion, before voicing said opinion, one must consider Article 18 of the ICCPR.A free independent media is a tool that can be used to fight poverty. Consequently, the international community should developed global rules to enable the Internet to become a free platform for freedom of expression and democracy. However, numerous states have arrested or harassed their own citizens in response to citizens voicing their opinions online. Furthermore, the overwhelming involvement for-profit businesses have in Internet development and management serves as another form of censorship; they have a large monopoly over the internet. For instance, tracking data, which is now used regularly on numerous websites, restricts persons’ right to privacy, which in turn violates persons’ right to freedom of expression and opinion.The promotion of Internet rights will promote other human rights, such as economic rights. The Internet helps to shrink social and economic differences between developing and developed nations.When exercising the right to freedom of expression, media personnel must employ good judgment when determining what to report. The use of stereotypes is an inappropriate form of expression. Instead of promoting conversation and dialog, such reports lead to anger and hostility.  According to international law, the restrictions to freedom of expression must meet three elements: (1) restrictions must be provided by law; (2) restrictions should pursue an aim recognized as lawful; and (3) restrictions should be proportional.  A government can find a statement defamatory, but it must fulfill the following elements: (1) it must be published in a spoken, written, pictured, or gestured form; and (2) the statement must be false; and (3) done with actual malice. Additionally, defamation cases should be overseen by independent press councils, rather than local governments.In a multitude of states, persons charged with defamation are placed in prison and treated like all other criminals. Consequently, imprisonment is used to deter persons from speaking out against the government.  Fortunately, in some states, governments are taking steps to decriminalize defamation.There continues to be an increase in the number of murdered journalists.  Iraq has been the most dangerous conflict for media personnel ever. There are several international NGO’s that raise funds to help protect journalists. However, governments also need to play a role in protecting journalists within their own borders. Furthermore, there is pressure to develop international standards to identify and protect journalists.

Special Rapporteur: Ambeyi Ligabo

Date: 30 December 2005

Summary: This report focuses on emerging technology and the need for dialogue regarding the link between new technologies and human rights. The Special Rapporteur found encouraging the development of an affordable computer that should enable wider informational access to the roughly 30% of the global populace who do not have access to the Internet. At the Tunis summit, parties discussed Internet governance, particularly the possibility of creating an intergovernmental body to govern Internet domain names, a body that would hopefully also be dedicated to the non-profit proliferation of information.

Special Rapporteur: Ambeyi Ligabo

Date: 17 December 2004

Summary: The right of access to information is one of the central challenges of the future. In many countries, decisions of public bodies and bodies performing public functions still are of a confidential nature and unavailable to any but the individuals or parties involved. The report examines, through a historical analysis of the action of the United Nations on freedom of opinion and expression, the main trends, achievements and shortcomings of the mandate since its inception. Protection and security remain great concerns because these factors are the source of great distress among media professionals and their families. Media security remains a grave problem. The absence of remedial action may endanger the indispensable role of imparting information that media professionals play. The report recommends to Governments that they reinvigorate their action regarding the security of citizens and impunity, and invites them to adopt legislation on access to information, Internet governance and defamation in conformity with international human rights standards.

Special Rapporteur: Ambeyi Ligabo

Date: 12 December 2003

Summary: This report expands upon the previous year’s. First, freedom of expression is an important tool in prevention of HIV/AIDS by allowing access to information, education, goods and services. States should promote effective prevention programs through awareness campaigns, such as education, training, and media programs to combat discrimination and empower women. Second, any measures taken to counter terrorism must be subject to strict limitations that they be transparent, necessary, time-limited, and strictly proportional to the exigencies of the situation. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantee the right to freedom of expression, which is the cornerstone of a democratic society. The right to freedom of expression has both an individual and a social aspect. Every individual holds the right to express opinions and seek, receive, and important information, but there is also a collective right to receive information and access the thoughts expressed by others. Thus, information such as judicial opinions, which can inform the community and keep the judiciary accountable, should be made accessible to everyone.

Special Rapporteur: Ambeyi Ligabo

Date: 12 December 2003

Summary: First, freedom is expression is an important tool in prevention of HIV/AIDS by allowing access to information, education, goods and services. States should promote effective prevention programs through awareness campaigns, such as education, training, and media programs, to combat discrimination and empower women. Second, any measures taken to counter terrorism must be subject to strict limitations that they be transparent, necessary, time-limited, and strictly proportional to the exigencies of the situation. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantee the right to freedom of expression, which is the cornerstone of a democratic society. The right to freedom of expression has both an individual and a social aspect. Every individual holds the right to express opinions and seek, receive, and important information, but there is also a collective right to receive information and access the thoughts expressed by others.

Special Rapporteur: Abid Hussain

Date: 30 January 2002

Summary: This report tackles a number of topics. First, exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and full respect of the right to freedom of information contribute extensively to the fight against racism, discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. The free flow of ideas is the most powerful way to combat these injustices. The right to freedom of expression should remain unabridged unless it leads to incitement of hate speech or discrimination, in which case care should be taken to balance the right to freedom of expression and prohibition on speech. The Internet provides a valuable new technology to combat racism through the promotion of human rights, but also creates problems of dissemination of racist and xenophobic material. To combat this, online expression should be monitored in the same manner as hate speech consistent with international standards.Second, the Special Rapporteur condemned the attacks of 11 September. It is particularly important for States to consider the human rights implications of any measures they adopted in response to the 11 September attacks. The Special Rapporteur expressed concerns that some States adopted laws that infringe upon the right to freedom of expression, including censorship, contempt, and religious intolerance.

Third, broadcasting is the most important medium for upholding freedom of expression because it is the primary source of information and news for a vast majority of people worldwide. Therefore, it is integral that broadcast journalists are able to operate independently, without a State controlled monopoly, to reach all sectors of society equally. In recent years, excessive commercialization has threatened the independence of broadcasting, so journalists should ensure that they retain editorial independence.

Fourth, the Special Rapporteur again reiterated the importance of the Internet to freedom of expression. The majority of Internet users are found in developed countries, so most of the world’s population does not have access to the Internet as a tool of expression. National and international initiatives should focus on extending Internet access to all societies until global access is achieved. Excessive regulation and online surveillance of Internet infringes upon the right to freedom of expression, so the Special Rapporteur encouraged the continued development of encryption and anonymity software.

Special Rapporteur: Abid Hussain

Date: 13 February 2001

Summary: First, the human rights standards that are established in international instruments are generally confined to governments and their agents; however, an increasing number of violations of freedom of opinion and expression have been carried out by non-State actors. Whether the non-State actor is acting for the State by proxy or the State neglects to deal with the non-State actor, it is the State’s obligation to exercise due diligence and ensure that government bodies are responsible for enforcing the law and fully investigating crimes. Second, this report reiterated the importance of new technologies to the right to freedom of expression and access to information. Governments continue to use excessive regulations or shut down access to the Internet, violating international human rights standards. Governments must take steps to integrate the Internet and other new technologies into the development process of the State. Third, women cannot fully participate in efforts to prevent, stop, and recover armed conflict. Effective participation in the decision making process depends on the ability to freely express oneself, to join with others in a common cause, and to meet opening and without fear. These actions depend upon the right to freedom of opinion, expression, information, assembly, and association.

Special Rapporteur: Abid Hussain

Date: 18 January 2000

Summary: First, the right to seek, receive, and impart information is not a corollary of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, but a right in and of itself. Of particular concern is the tendency of governments to withhold information from the people when they have a right to such information. As such, governments should review existing legislation or adopt new laws to address the right to access information and ensure the government’s conformity with the general principles of international law.Second, criminal libel and defamation laws have a direct and negative impact of the right to expression and access to information because they create a climate of self-censorship. Criminal laws should not be used to stifle the publication of matters of public interest, so governments should repeal any criminal libel or defamation laws in favor of civil laws. In States where the criminal justice system is especially corrupt, there is a need to overhaul the entire system and put in place a system in which police are protected from political interference and judges are trained to protect freedom of expression.

Third, access to new technologies—in particular the Internet and satellite dishes—is integral to the free flow of information, ideas, and opinions. No measures should be taken by governments to impose excessive regulations on the use of new technologies, as technology should be guaranteed the same protections as other forms of print expression.

Special Rapporteur: Abid Hussain

Date: 29 January 1999

Special Rapporteur: Abid Hussain

Date: 4 February 1997

Special Rapporteur: Abid Hussain

Date: 14 December 1994