CCPR/C/139/D/3252/2018 of the press to discussion of the public interest and should be reserved for exceptional situations. Article 26 of the act on the mass media provides for an exemption of the mass media from liability for disseminating untrue information, “if such information is a verbatim reproduction of a public speech”. The author alleges that since the domestic courts failed to apply that provision, the restriction on her right to freedom of expression was not provided for by law. 3.3 Furthermore, the author claims that the courts have failed to consider her case in the light of the standards applicable to freedom of expression, to conduct a balancing exercise between protection of the rights of a public figure and the right to freedom of expression through the right to share information of public interest. In particular, the courts did not consider that public figures, especially heads of State, should be subject to the highest level of scrutiny. 2 Additionally, the courts have disregarded the fact that the article was a contribution to a public debate and concerned matters of public interest. Thus, the restriction of her rights was not necessary in a democratic society. The author also claims that the amount of non-pecuniary damages imposed on her was excessive and thus the restriction was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. 3.4 The author also emphasizes that the present communication should be viewed within the broader context of a significantly deteriorating situation for the right to freedom of expression in Kyrgyzstan, and in the light of the widespread application of restrictive legislation on the right to freedom of expression. A number of other journalists and editors-in-chief were sued by the Prosecutor General under the Act on the Guarantees of Activities of the President of Kyrgyzstan for several thousand dollars in non-pecuniary damages in favour of the then President.3 The author also refers to numerous reports stating that the independent media, human rights defenders and civil society in Kyrgyzstan are facing serious consequences for exercising the right to freedom of expression.4 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 In a note verbale, dated 26 February 2019, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. 4.2 The State party confirms the author’s description of the events but underscores certain aspects. As to the application of the injunctive measures, the State party asserts that they were provided by law and, as the author’s job implies a lot of travelling, it was deemed appropriate to impose a travel ban for the duration of the court proceedings. 4.3 The State party further submits that the examination by the linguistics expert of the videotape and transcript of Ms. D.’s speech revealed that the speech contained emotionally expressive elements, irony and sarcasm. According to the expert’s report, by characterizing the President’s ethical and moral standards negatively, Ms. D. had undermined his status and tarnished his professional reputation and public image, degrading his honour and dignity. Furthermore, the State party points out that while the author argues that the article focused on issues of public interest, journalists bear a responsibility to verify information and its sources. The article distorted certain parts of Ms. D.’s speech and misrepresented some phrases as direct quotations, while they were not part of the speech. In particular, the State party refers to the title of the article and several phrases, including “A person with manic tendencies cannot terrorize 6 million people like this. He is dragging us into a civil war. Maniacs should be warned that he is one and we are many”. 2 3 4 GE.23-25064 The author refers to European Court of Human Rights, Bodrozoc and Vujin v. Serbia, Application No. 38435/05, Judgment, 23 June 2009. The author refers to the 2015 report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia on anti-corruption reforms in Kyrgyzstan, in which they recommended that the duty of the Prosecutor General to protect the honour and dignity of the President be abolished. Available from https://www.oecd.org/corruption/anti-corruption-reforms-in-kyrgyzstan.htm. The author refers to a number of reports, including one on the freedom of the press in Kyrgyzstan in 2017 and “Nations in transit 2017, Kyrgyzstan” issued by Freedom House; Reporters Without Borders, “Hour of truth for media freedom in Kyrgyzstan” (accessed on 16 January 2024); and Amnesty International Report 2017/2018. The State of the World’s Human Rights, pp. 231 and 232. 3