CCPR/C/139/D/3252/2018 prohibits criminal liability as a punishment for disseminating information that tarnishes an individual’s reputation and dignity. The Committee observes that the now-repealed article 127 of the Criminal Code punished libel in public speeches or on mass media by a fine of up to a maximum of 100,000 soms. However, in the present case, the author was ordered to pay an amount of 3,000,000 soms, which is 30 times greater than what she would have paid if she had been criminally convicted under the former provision on libel in the Criminal Code. The court’s judgment became final and enforceable, and the sole reason for which the compensation part of the judgments was not claimed was a personal decision of the plaintiff, which was an unpredictable factor, rather than as a result of a regular legal procedure. Given that the author was sued for defaming the then head of State and for exercising professional journalistic activities while reporting on issues that were undoubtedly matters of public interest, it is evident that the judgment of the domestic courts had a chilling effect on the author’s right to freedom of expression.13 9. In view of the above, the Committee concludes that the restriction imposed on the author’s right to freedom of expression was neither necessary nor proportionate. Therefore, the Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 19 of the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated to refund the court expenses paid by the author and provide her with adequate compensation. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 11. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and disseminate them broadly in the official languages of the State party. 13 GE.23-25064 See, mutatis mutandis, Kankanamge v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/81/D/909/2000), para. 9.4. 7