A/HRC/46/58 address those causes and drivers. A wide range of actors, in particular civil society and minorities, should be included. 25. States and international and regional organizations should take measures to empower citizens to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech online, with a view to improving digital and human rights literacy. They should also support civil society organizations in this endeavour. 26. States should consider establishing independent and authoritative specialized institutions that meet international standards to carry out work against hate speech. 27. States should ensure accessible mechanisms for civil society organizations to use in reporting hate speech online. 28. States should provide adequate and specialized training to law enforcement agencies and the judiciary on minority rights, in particular with regard to hate speech online. Any instance of hate crimes on the part of law enforcement officials should be fully and quickly investigated and sanctioned. 29. Media pluralism should be encouraged, such as through the facilitation of access to and ownership of media by minority, indigenous and other groups, including media in their own languages. Local empowerment through media pluralism facilitates the emergence of speech capable of countering hate speech. 30. States, media and social media companies, and civil society should be encouraged to address distortion and systemic biases against Jews and Muslims in a comprehensive manner, as evidence suggests that antisemitism and Islamophobia are pressing challenges today. 31. Although States remain the primary duty bearers, all relevant actors must contribute to addressing the challenges and combating hate speech, including the tech industry and, in particular, social media platforms, through a strong human rightsbased approach to the technologies. IV. Recommendations on the international legal and institutional framework 32. The human rights principles guiding the legal and institutional framework should be general and technology-neutral, but capable of application to a range of specific technologies, including social media. 33. The relationship between the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, nondiscrimination and equality should be recognized as positive and mutually reinforcing. The proscription of hate speech and the flourishing of the freedom of opinion and expression should be seen as complementary and not the expression of a zero-sum game. 34. Discussions should be initiated regarding the adoption of an international instrument to address different forms of hate speech, including through criminalization, as specified in the Rabat Plan of Action and Human Rights Council resolution 16/18, in particular subparagraph 5 (f). 35. Relevant provisions of existing instruments, such as articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, should be used to amend national laws for the purposes of addressing gaps in interpretation and implementation of hate speech laws. These provisions should be applied to cover a wide range of groups targeted by hate speech, including hate speech based on religion; ethnicity; language; nationality; race; colour; descent, including caste; gender; refugee, asylum seeker or migrant status; involvement in human rights protection; sexual orientation; and other identity factors. 36. An internationally acceptable legal definition of hate speech should be adopted in accordance with international human rights law, particularly on freedom of 5