A/HRC/16/53/Add.1 relevance to the citizens of the Republic of Hungary and members of the Hungarian nation” (article 13 (2), Press and Media Act). 131. While the Special Rapporteurs acknowledged the importance of the media to uphold the highest standards of ethics and professionalism, such standards should be adhered to voluntarily, rather than as obligations with legal sanctions (see for example the latest report to the General Assembly by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/65/284, para. 22). It is unclear how the legal requirements for the media to provide “authentic, rapid and accurate information” or “comprehensive, factual, up-to-date, objective, and balanced coverage” is necessary for achieving one of the aims set out in article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Special Rapporteurs are concerned that the plurality and diversity of views and information transmitted by the media may be undermined. 132. Article 14 (1) of the Press and Media Act provides that “the media content provider shall – in the media content that it publishes and while preparing such media content – respect human dignity”, and article 14 (2) stipulates that “no self-gratifying and detrimental coverage of persons in humiliating or defenceless situations is allowed in the media content.” In relation to these provisions, the Special Rapporteurs reminded the Government that limitations to the right to freedom of expression can only be imposed to protect the purposes enunciated in articles 19 (3) or 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this regard, they noted with concern that “respect for human dignity”, and the prohibition of content that is “self-gratifying and detrimental coverage of persons in humiliating or defenceless situations”, constitute overly broad grounds for limiting the right to freedom of expression. The Special Rapporteurs also underscored that public officials and authorities should not take part in the initiation of defamation cases and tolerate more criticism because of the nature of their mandate, since public office entails public scrutiny as part of checks and balances in any democratic society (see for example E/CN.4/2006/55, para. 55). 133. Although article 6 (1) of the Press and Media Act guarantees the right of media content providers to keep the identity of its informant confidential, article 6 (3) stipulates that “in exceptionally justified cases, courts or authorities may – in the interest of protecting national security and public order or uncovering or preventing criminal acts – require the media service provider and any person employed by or engaged, in any other legal relationship intended for the performance of work, with the media content provider to reveal the identity of the informant.” The Special Rapporteurs emphasized that protection of national security may not be used as a reason to compel journalists to reveal confidential sources, as enunciated in Principle 18 of the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (as endorsed in the 1996 report by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, E/CN.4/1996/39). Moreover, the Special Rapporteurs expressed their concern over the provision which authorizes forced disclosure of identity for the too broadly defined purposes of “uncovering or preventing criminal acts”, which may thus be subject to abuse. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteurs noted that “authorities”, which is not defined further, in addition to courts, may request for the disclosure of identity of the source, and are concerned that there are insufficient guarantees to ensure that such disclosure is not done in a manner that is arbitrary or free of political influence. 134. The Special Rapporteurs are also concerned about several provisions in the Press and Media Act which refer to religious groups and communities, including article 11, which states that “the public service media operates in order to preserve and strengthen integrity both on a national and European level, foster national, family, ethnic and religious communities”; article 17 (1), which states that “media content may not incite hatred against persons, nations, communities, national, ethnic, linguistic and other minorities or any 28