CCPR/C/139/D/3252/2018 4.4 The State party concludes that the author’s right to freedom of expression has been lawfully restricted, as it interfered with the former President’s right to honour and reputation. Moreover, the State party notes that in 2018 the former President waived part of his claim for non-pecuniary damages. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 8 and 11 July 2019, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 First, the author reiterates that the linguistics expert focused the examination on Ms. D.’s speech, not on the text of the article. The author argues that since the article only presented a partial and edited version of Ms. D.’s speech, the analysis of the speech cannot be directly extrapolated to cover the entirety of the text of the article. Furthermore, as the domestic courts relied extensively on the conclusions of the expert examination, it is apparent that the key legal findings as to the degrading and offensive nature of the speech were, in fact, made by the expert and were then merely reproduced in the judicial decisions. 5.3 Second, the author states that the article published on the Zanoza website did not replicate Ms. D.’s speech verbatim, but nor did it distort her statements. The author refers to paragraph 15 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan “on judicial practice for the resolution of disputes on protection of honour, dignity and business reputation”, pursuant to which a verbatim reproduction of public speeches may include quotations that differ slightly from the original statement, while retaining the content thereof. In addition, some of the phrases that were part of Ms. D.’s speech, which were considered problematic by the domestic courts and were also mentioned in the State party’s observations, were not reproduced in the article. Furthermore, the domestic courts never assessed the accuracy of the content of the article in relation to the original speech. 5.4 Third, the author reiterates that the text of the article concerned a matter of public importance, namely open public debate on the human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan and legitimate criticism of the former President in connection with his official duties. The article was based on factual material, such as the information from a public round table on human rights and quotes from a public figure, Ms. D., who made statements during the round table. The factual nature of the material was not disputed and the prosecutor’s claims focused mainly on the negative assessment of the former President’s performance of his official duties. 5.5 The author notes that although the article contained statements by Ms. D. that were harsh, perhaps even shocking, they represented her analytical value judgment and being clearly subjective and evaluative, did not require verification. In any event, there was a sufficient factual basis for the contested allegations and a value judgment supported by facts cannot be considered excessive. 5 Furthermore, the article did not discuss the former President’s physical or psychological condition, but rather a type of behaviour adopted by him to resolve conflicts and disputes with the media, thus assessing his professional qualities.6 The author also notes that the article in question was a reporter’s description of a public figure’s speech at an official event. News portal Zanoza could not ask questions for clarification and therefore obtain a less emotional assessment, and its aim was to convey the position of the public figure to the audience, thus contributing to the public debate. 5.6 Finally, the author emphasizes that the State party did not address the proportionality of the injunctive measures imposed on her by the domestic courts. She argues that the travel ban had an unjustified deterrent effect on her ability to carry out her professional activities, preventing her from participating in international information exchanges and thereby negatively affecting her ability to carry out her journalistic duties. 5 6 4 The author refers to European Court of Human Rights, De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, Application No. 19983/92, Judgment, 24 February 1997. The author refers to European Court of Human Rights, Chemodurov v. Russia, Application No. 72683/01, Judgment, 31 July 2007. GE.23-25064