6.2 Compliance With Meta’s Human-Rights Responsibilities In line with its human-rights responsibilities, Meta’s moderation of violent and graphic content must respect the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom to seek, receive and impart information (Art. 19, para. 2, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)). As the Board stated in the Armenian Prisoners of War Video case, the protections for freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) “remain engaged during armed conflicts, and should continue to inform Meta’s human rights responsibilities, alongside the mutually reinforcing and complementary rules of international humanitarian law that apply during such conflicts.” The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights impose a heightened responsibility on businesses operating in a conflict setting ("Business, human rights and conflict-affected regions: towards heightened action," A/75/212). The Board has emphasized in previous cases that social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram are an important vehicle for transmitting in real-time information about violent events, including news reporting (see e.g. Mention of the Taliban in News Reporting). They play an especially important role in contexts of armed conflicts, especially where there is limited access for journalists. Furthermore, content depicting violent attacks and humanright abuses is of great public interest (See Sudan Graphic Video). When restrictions on expression are imposed by a state, under international human rights law they must meet the requirements of legality, legitimate aim and necessity and proportionality (Article 19, para. 3, ICCPR). These requirements are often referred to as the “three-part test.” The Board uses this framework to interpret Meta’s voluntary human-rights commitments, both in relation to the individual content decision under review and what this says about Meta’s broader approach to content governance. In doing so, the Board attempts to be sensitive to how those rights may be different as applied to a private social media company than as applied to a government. Nonetheless, as the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression has stated that while companies do not have the obligations of governments “their impact is of a sort that requires them to assess the same kind of questions about protecting their right to freedom of expression” ( report A/74/486, para. 41.). Legality requires that any restriction on freedom of expression should be accessible and clear enough to provide guidance as to what is permitted and what is not. The Board has previously expressed concern that the rules of the Violence and Graphic Content Community