A/HRC/16/53/Add.1 153. According to the Government, the purpose of Article 17 of the Press and Media Act was to provide the opportunity for effective legal remedies when addressing problems related to racism, xenophobia or anti-Semitism – thereby helping to prevent the development of a climate of intolerance. Based on this aim, the article sought to combat al1 ideologies, policies and practices characterized by incitement to racial hatred, violence and discrimination, as well as any action or language likely to strengthen fears and tensions between groups from different racial, ethnic, national, religious or social backgrounds. 154. The Government was aware that the balance between securing freedom of expression and promoting a culture of tolerance was an extremely delicate one, and finding it posed a substantial challenge to al1 legal systems. However, the Government was confident that its legislation drew appropriate boundaries to freedom of expression also in this respect. At this instance the Government referred again to the importance of the judicial review over the activities of the media authority as granted by the Press and Media Act that ensured this balance at the level of the practice. The independence and sanctioning powers of the regulatory authority 155. Finally, as regards the Special Rapporteurs’ concerns over the independence of the National Media and Infocommunications Authority – and the Media Council therein – the Government noted that the Media Council was comprised of specialists elected by a twothirds majority in the Hungarian National Assembly. The Government believed that the fact that they are elected by Parliament was itself proof enough that they could not be regarded as political appointees. The Hungarian legislation provided substantial guarantees to ensure their independent conduct in their office: in performing their duties, members of the Media Council could not take orders from anyone; they could not be recalled; and they had to comply with strict rules on conflict of interest. The elected members of the Media Council were expected to have no ties – either formal or informal – to any political party, or to the Government. Media authorities with a much smaller degree of independence from their respective governments were not uncommon across Europe: in several countries it was the Government, the Head of State or a minister that appointed the members of such authorities. 156. With regard to the imposition of fines and other sanctions by the Authority, the Government referred to Article 185 (2) of the Media Services and Mass Media Act, which stated that “in applying the legal consequence, the Media Council and the Office – under the principle of equal treatment – shall act in line with the principles of progressivity and proportionality; shall apply the legal consequence proportionately in line with the gravity and rate of re-occurrence of the infringement, taking into account al1 circumstances of the case and the purpose of the legal consequence”. This provision was complemented by 187 (2) of the same act, stating: “The Media Council and the Office shall impose the legal consequence – depending on the nature of the infringement – taking into account the gravity of the infringement, whether it was committed on one or more occasions or on an ad-hoc or continuous basis, its duration, the pecuniary benefits earned as a result of the infringement, the damage to interests caused by the infringement, the number of persons aggrieved or jeopardized by the damage to interests, the damage caused by the infringement and the impact of the infringement on the market and other considerations that may be taken into account in the particular case.” According to the Government, these provisions effectively excluded the possibility of disproportionate sanctioning by the Authority. 157. The Government also noted that the Media Services and Mass Media Act granted the possibility of judicial review for al1 of the Authority’s decisions. The media service provider concerned could challenge the decision of the Media Council by launching an appeal at the competent court. The court may dismiss the decision of the Authority or 33