Article 38(d) refers to libel, slander, humiliation of individuals and violation of the freedom of individuals. As legitimate as the latter sounds, in the end it is simply too general a reference to meet the standard for restrictions on freedom of expression, which must be clear and precise. Better practice is to provide for specific laws to protect individuals’ freedom, such as libel or defamation laws, privacy laws, hate speech laws and so on. Humiliation is also not a value that, under international law, can sustain a restriction on freedom of expression, because it is a subjective notion which is not capable of being proven to be true or false. As the UN Human Rights Committee noted, defamation laws “should not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification”.28 As for the references in Article 38(d) to libel, slander, it is recognised that protection of reputation is a legitimate ground for restricting freedom of expression and every country has some sort of defamation law for this purpose. At the same time, it is recognised that defamation is a complex area of law, and that standards and laws in this area must be carefully tailored to strike an appropriate balance between protection of reputation and the right to freedom of expression.29 It is not clear whether the references in Article 38(d) to libel and slander incorporate standards from the rest of Jordanian law on these issues, but on their own they are not sufficiently developed or detailed to cover this area of law. Article 39(a) gives the public prosecutor the power to decide what the print media may publish in relation to a criminal investigation. While the prosecutor should have the power, at least subject to appeal, to decide whether or not to provide information to the media about an investigation, this office remains a public office which needs to be subject to public scrutiny and oversight, in particular through the media. As such, it is simply not legitimate to give the prosecutor the power to dictate to the media what they may publish. In democracies, prosecutors have no power to tell the media what to publish about an investigation although they do have the power not to reveal information which may undermine the progress of an investigation. There are also a number of laws, for example relating to protection of children, protection of privacy and so on, which may be relevant in this area. Articles 27-29 of the Law set out the rules relating to the rights of reply and correction. According to Article 27, a person affected by incorrect content in a press publication has the right to reply to it or to have it corrected, and the editor-in-chief must publish the reply or correction, free of charge, in the next issue in the same place and using the same print as the 28 Ibid., para. 47. 29 See, for example, the Joint Declaration of the special international mandates (special rapporteurs) on freedom of expression of 30 November 2000, note 9, which focuses mainly on the issue of defamation. Jordan: Analysis of the Press and Publications Law, 1998, as Amended - 19