recommendations to Governments regarding the legislative, judicial and policy framework most adapted to addressing effectively hate speeches amounting to incitement under article 20 of the ICCPR. The Rabat Plan of Action tells us that not all Hate Speeches are the same and that there is one kind in particular that the International Community should be particularly mindful of – The speech that incite others to commit violence or discrimination, as per article 20 of the ICCPR. The Plan goes on to recommend that governments focus on Incitement Speech first and foremost – they are a permissible limit to freedom of expression; they may be criminalised and in any case legislated against. The Rabat Plan further recommends that to be effective, the Incitement Speech legislation must be clear, focused; it should not be overbroad; judges should be competent, armed with the best tools to assess threshold and impact of these Speech; there should be fair and public hearings ran competent, independent and impartial tribunals established by law. The Rabat Plan of action also includes a 6-part test to assist judges in determining whether speech may meet the threshold of article 20 of the ICCPR. This test includes questions related to the context, the influence of the speaker, the content of the speech, and the means of communication, as well as regarding the intent of the speaker and the likelihood the audience will act on the call. The Rabat Plan also recommends that blasphemy laws – amongst the most abused in the world, along with defamation – be repealed. Dr. Callamard insists that these recommendations remain more meaningful than ever, in view of the international, political and legal environment. Her analysis of freedom of expression jurisprudence around the world since 2014, for Columbia University, demonstrates that national security largely dominates the judicial agenda, that military law is creeping into legal procedures and that there are many irregularities in application of judicial standards and fair trials procedures were reported. As importantly, there is little to no reliance on article 20 of the ICCPR or on relevant prior domestic interpretations of incitement. It means the threshold employed in the identified cases varies considerably from the normative “incitement” threshold. In addition, or consequently, trials for blasphemy have continued unabated, including resulting in death penalty or summary executions. These are coming on top of legislative and policy initiatives seeking to curtail on-line expression, including by requiring that Internet platforms and social media perform the role of the censors. Dr. Callamard recommends that continuing to advocate smartly and effectively for a better understanding of freedom of expression and incitement speech while experiencing and exploring different ways of countering incitement and its impact for human rights. Dr. Callamard suggests 10