13/3/24, 13:44 Oversight Board | Independent Judgment. Transparency. Legitimacy. freedom of opinion and expression, reports A/68/362 (2013); A/HRC/38/35 (2018); A/74/486 (2019); A/77/288 (2022). The right to life: Article 6, ICCPR. The right to be free from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment: Article 7, ICCPR. The right to privacy: Article 17, ICCPR. Protection of prisoners of war from insults and public curiosity: Article 13, para. 2 Convention III relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War ( Geneva Convention III), Geneva Convention (III) Commentary, International Red Cross Committee (ICRC), 2020 ( Geneva Convention III Commentary). 5. User submissions Following Meta’s referral and the Board’s decision to accept the case, the user was sent a message notifying them of the Board’s review and providing them with an opportunity to submit a statement to the Board. The user did not submit a statement. 6. Meta’s submissions Meta referred this case to the Board “because it highlights the challenges [Meta] face[s] when determining whether the value of content’s newsworthiness outweighs the risk of harm in the context of war and violence.” While the content violated Meta’s Coordinating Harm and Promoting Crime policy, the newsworthiness allowance was applied “in order to raise awareness of the violence against prisoners of war” in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Meta said the case was “significant” due to its relationship to an ongoing military conflict, and “difficult” because it requires “balancing the value of raising awareness of these issues against the potential harm caused by revealing the identity of prisoners of war.” Meta explains that it prohibits “outing” prisoners of war, but its escalation teams require “additional context” to enforce that rule. Meta added this rule to reflect the fact that they take the safety and dignity of prisoners of war seriously, given the risks of their platforms being used to expose them to public curiosity, noting both freedom of expression principles from Article 19 of the ICCPR, and the guidance of the Geneva Conventions. The Board understands this to mean that for such content to be removed, in-house investigation teams would need to flag it for review to Meta’s internal teams, or at-scale reviewers would need to escalate the content to https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/FB-YLRV35WD/ 11/26