protected by any other means short of criminalization, that this criminalization is in accordance with the law, and that it does not restrict the right to freedom of expression. When employing such a law, the HRC states that it should not apply to pure opinion or estimation17 and should allow the defense of truth to serve as a legitimate argument in the face of defamation charges. 18 Other guidelines include: (1) not penalizing the accidental publishing of untrue statements;19 (2) allowing public interest to be a legitimate defense of potential defamation;20 and (3) above all, avoiding excessively harsh penalties.21 Defamation charges should only be applied in the most serious of cases, with restrictions. Imprisonment should be avoided as well, and trials should proceed expeditiously. The restrictions also demand the acquittal of persons charged with defamation if their allegedly defamatory statement is in fact true, made without malice, or related to a subject where criticism is in the public interest. The HRC also states that media outlets, publishers or journalists cannot be punished solely for being critical of the government or the political system.22 The HRC also addresses the differences in defamation legislation when applied to public and private entities. All public figures, including the highest political authority, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition.23 The limits of acceptable criticism for politicians are wider than for private individuals,24 and public bodies should not be permitted to bring defamation charges against an individual or organization. Public figures cannot be seen as having a “reputation” as they lack any emotional or financial interest in preventing damage to their good name. It can also be considered improper to spend public money on defamation suits. These outlines exist to protect the right to freedom of expression. Article 305 of the Criminal Code violates these criteria, especially as defamation can be made to injure the honor or reputation of an “institution.” Interim Measures Article 19, a leading international NGO working to uphold freedom of expression, free access to information and free media, has published interim measures for addressing defamation offenses, pending full decriminalization.25 These minimum standards, complying with international law, include: 1. No-one should be convicted for criminal defamation unless the party claiming to be defamed proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presence of all the elements of the offence, as set out below; 2. The offence of criminal defamation shall not be made out unless it has been proven that the impugned statements are false, that they were made with actual knowledge of falsity, or 17 UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No.34 (2011). UN Human Rights Committee Concluding Observations on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 UN Human Rights Committee Concluding Observations on Peru, CCPR/CO/70/PER. 23 UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No.34 (2011). 24 Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407. 25 Article 19, ‘Criminal Defamation’ http://bit.ly/1jKtYki 18 4