A/HRC/16/53/Add.1 Gouvernement, est placé sur le site web (www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/visits.htm). H. de la Rapporteuse spéciale Hungary Communication sent on 18 January 2011 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (a) Allegations transmitted to the Government 126. The Special Rapporteurs drew the attention of the Government to information they had received regarding two acts relating to the regulation of the media, namely the Press and Media Act (Act CIV of 2010) and the Media Services and Mass Media Act (Act CLXXXV of 2010), which have been adopted by the parliament of Hungary on 20 December 2010, and came into effect on 1 January 2011. 127. The Special Rapporteurs expressed their concern that the introduction of a new regime of media regulation through the adoption of these Acts constitutes a regressive step for press freedom and all individuals’ right to freedom of opinion and expression in the Republic of Hungary. The Special Rapporteurs’ main concerns include the fact that the types of media content deemed illegal in the two Acts are overly broad and vague, and the Acts are enforced by a non-independent entity. These factors will increase the likelihood of creating a chilling effect on the exercise of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression as well as freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 128. At the outset, the Special Rapporteurs reminded the Government that while the right to freedom of expression can be limited under certain circumstances, three clear-cut conditions must be respected for any limitation on the right to freedom of expression: (a) restrictions must be established in law, which is accessible, unambiguous, drawn narrowly and with precision so as to enable individuals to foresee whether a particular action is unlawful; (b) they should pursue one of the aims listed in article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and (c) they must be proportionate to the accomplishment of that aim, in a sense that the benefit to the protected interest must outweigh the harm to freedom of expression, including in respect to the sanctions imposed, and constitute the least intrusive means to achieve the aim without jeopardizing the respect for the right to freedom of expression (see for example the latest report to the Human Rights Council by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/HRC/14/23). In addition, any laws restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse. 129. The Special Rapporteurs are concerned that the provisions in the Press and Media Act and the Media Services and Mass Media Act do not meet the criteria outlined above. In particular, the Special Rapporteurs expressed their concerns regarding the following provisions, which they deem to be particularly problematic. 130. Section VI of the Press and Media Act outlines several obligations of the press, including provisions which stipulate that “all media content providers shall provide authentic, rapid and accurate information on local, national and European Union affairs and on any event that bears relevance to the citizens of the Republic of Hungary and members of the Hungarian nation” (article 13 (1), Press and Media Act), and that “linear and ondemand media content providers engaged in news coverage operations shall provide comprehensive, factual, up-to-date, objective and balanced coverage on local, national and European issues that may be of interest for the general public and on any event bearing 27