CCPR/C/139/D/3252/2018 State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 17 March 2020, the State party submitted additional observations on the author’s comments. 6.2 The State party argues that the author’s allegation that the domestic courts had failed to conduct a thorough first-hand examination of the case materials is not supported by the texts of the judgments. The State party acknowledges that the courts indeed relied on the findings of the expert examination in making their decisions. As regards the injunction measures, the State party argues that the author failed to provide any examples of how the measures interfered with her professional activities. Furthermore, the State party points out that the former President waived his claim for non-pecuniary damages. That led to other defendants lodging complaints for a supervisory review, which resulted in the revision of the judgments in their cases in regard to that specific aspect. Thus, the State party suggests that there are no lingering adverse legal consequences for the author arising from the court judgments. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to her. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that regard, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated her claims under article 19 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds to consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes that the decisions of the domestic courts ordering the ProMedia foundation to remove the article from the Zanoza website and the author to pay non-pecuniary damages in the amount of approximately 38,000 euros, as well as the travel ban imposed on the author for the duration of the domestic proceedings, constituted a restriction on the author’s right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 19 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee must therefore examine whether the imposed restriction was justified under the criteria provided by article 19 (3) of the Covenant. 8.3 The Committee refers to its general comment No. 34 (2011), according to which freedom of opinion and expression are essential for any society and constitute the foundation stone of every free and democratic society (para. 2). According to article 19 (3) of the Covenant, the right to freedom of expression can be subject to certain restrictions, but only such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) for respect for the rights or reputations of others; or (b) for the protection of national security or public order, or of public health or morals (para. 28). All restrictions imposed on freedom of expression must be provided by law. They may only be imposed on the grounds set out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of article 19 (3) and they must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that a free, uncensored and unhindered press or other media, including internet news portals, as in this case, is essential in any society to ensure freedom of opinion and expression and the enjoyment of other Covenant rights. That implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issues without censorship or restraint GE.23-25064 5