3/10/22, 12:48 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. of certain rights, the narrowing of civic space, and the negative consolidation of trends on governance, accountability and rule of law in many national settings.” The Board notes that the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has expressed specific concerns in this regard on Turkey ( A/HRC/41/35/ADD.2). II.Right to remedy (Article 2 ICCPR) The right to remedy is a key component of international human rights law ( General Comment No. 31) and is the third pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has stated that the process of remediation “should include a transparent and accessible process for appealing platform decisions, with companies providing a reasoned response that should also be publicly accessible” (A/74/486, para 53). In this case, the user was informed an appeal was not available due to COVID-19. However, an appeal was then carried out. The Board once again stresses the need for Facebook to restore the appeals process in line with recommendations in cases 2020-004-IG-UA and 2021-003FB-UA. While the user in this case had their content restored, the Board is concerned at what may be a significant number of removals that should not have happened because Facebook lost internal guidance which allowed for discussion on conditions of confinement for designated individuals. Facebook informed the Board that it is undertaking a review of how it failed to transfer this guidance to its new review system, as well as whether any other policies were lost. However, in response to a Board question, the company said that “it is not technically feasible to determine how many pieces of content were removed when this policy guidance was not available to reviewers.” The Board is concerned that Facebook’s transparency reporting is not sufficient to meaningfully assess if the type of error identified in this case reflects a systemic problem. In questions submitted to Facebook, the Board requested more information on its error rates for enforcing its rules on “praise” and “support” of dangerous individuals and organizations. Facebook explained that it did not collect error rates at the level of the individual rules within the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, or in relation to the enforcement of specific exceptions contained only in its internal guidance. Facebook pointed the Board to https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/IG-I9DP23IB/ 16/21