a useful set of principles balancing the rights to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation, which state in part: • • • • • • All criminal defamation laws should be abolished and replaced, where necessary, with appropriate civil defamation laws. Steps should be taken, in those States which still have criminal defamation laws in place, to progressively implement this Principle. As a practical matter, in recognition of the fact that in many States criminal defamation laws are the primary means of addressing unwarranted attacks on reputation, immediate steps should be taken to ensure that any criminal defamation laws still in force conform fully to the following conditions: no-one should be convicted for criminal defamation unless the party claiming to be defamed proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presence of all the elements of the offence, as set out below; the offense of criminal defamation shall not be made out unless it has been proven that the impugned statements are false, that they were made with actual knowledge of the falsity, or recklessness as to whether or not they were false, and that they were made with a specific intention to cause harm to the party claiming to be defamed; Public authorities, including police and public prosecutors, should take no part in the initiation or prosecution of criminal defamation cases, regardless of the status of the party claiming to have been defamed, even if he or she is a senior public official; prison sentences, suspended prison sentences, suspension of the right to express oneself through any particular form of media, or to practice journalism or any other profession, excessive fines and other harsh criminal penalties should never be available as a sanction for breach of defamation laws, no matter how egregious or blatant the defamatory statement.6 Human Rights Watch takes no position on the merits of the private libel suits described in this report. However, the unexplained and exceptionally large damage awards Moroccan courts granted in the libel cases against Le Journal and TelQuel suggest that authorities exercised political influence on the courts to make the publications pay not only for the damage allegedly inflicted on the plaintiffs, but also for their criticisms and exposés of government policies and practices, and their investigations of corruption. Our concern with the chilling effect of libel prosecutions extends to cases filed by private parties and not just to those filed by public officials or on behalf of state institutions. A record libel judgment against Le Journal The most recent libel judgment of disturbing proportions is the one against Le Journal. Le Journal and its main competitor, TelQuel (see below), are glossy, aggressive Casablanca-based weeklies that appeal to an elite readership. Le Journal published in its December 3, 2005, issue a report on the Western Sahara in which it criticized and ridiculed a paper prepared by a Brussels-based think-tank, the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center (ESISC). The ESISC paper focuses on the Polisario, the independence movement that is Morocco's adversary in the protracted conflict over the Western Sahara. The ESISC paper is entitled "The Polisario Front: Credible Partner for Negotiations or