A/HRC/16/53/Add.1 – seemed to be a requirement going beyond what was necessary to ensure the possibility of public scrutiny. The protection of journalistic sources 148. As regards the protection of journalists’ sources, the Government drew the Special Rapporteurs’ attention to Article 6 (1) of the Press and Media Act, which explicitly stated that media outlets and journalists “are entitled to keep the identity of their sources confidentia1.” This general right of confidentiality also extended to court and authority proceedings: in other words, it granted those in the media exemption from the obligation to testify. According to these rules, journalists could only be required to disclose their sources of information in court or authority proceedings when there was exceptional justification. The definition of these exceptions corresponded to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 149. Furthermore, the Government Please noted that although Article 6 (3) of the Press and Media Act stated that courts and authorities may, in exceptional cases, request the disclosure of the identity of the source, this did not in itself mean that any court or any authority was vested to implement this power, regardless of the procedure or investigation it pursued. In fact, this provision may only be applied in the context of criminal investigation, as identification of sources may only be requested “in the interest of protecting national security and public order or uncovering or preventing criminal acts” – this limited the scope of the provision to authorities with criminal investigative powers defined in other statutory provisions, such as the Code on Penal Procedure. It should also be noted that such decisions were always subject to judicial review by the courts. The Government was convinced that this set of guarantees excluded the possibility of any arbitrary rulings. 150. The Government also emphasized that prior to the adoption of the Press and Media Act the scope for protection of journalistic sources was much narrower under Hungarian law. Under the legal regime of Act 11 of 1986 on the Press (the relevant act in force prior to the adoption of the Press and Media Act and Media Services and the Mass Media Act), journalistic sources did not enjoy any special protection in the context of criminal proceedings. In the light of this, the Government was convinced that the provisions of the Press and Media Act regarding the right of journalists to protect their sources of information could not be described as a “regressive step” in any way. Actions against incitement to hatred and discrimination 151. In the context of actions against incitement to hatred and discrimination, the Government noted that the Special Rapporteurs’ letter referred to various provisions, differing in both nature and context. The first of these provisions was Article 11 of the Press and Media Act, defining the basic role of public service media. Among other international documents, the Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)3 of the Committee of Ministers on the remit of public service media in the information society stated that “member states have the competence to define and assign a public service remit to one or more specific media organisations”. This competence was also recognised by European Union law and by several other documents of international law. 152. Another quoted provision was Article 20 (5) of the Press and Media Act, protecting religious and ideological convictions with regard to advertising. In this context the Government referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which granted a greater margin of interpretation to states when determining advertising regulation, given that such forms of communication – although also protected by the European Convention on Human Right – were less linked to democratic and social values than to economic ones. 32