A/73/305 transparent and accountable governance. Furthermore, it reaffirms, in its paragraph 94, that the stigmatization of people of different origins by acts or omissions of public authorities, institutions, the media, political parties or national or local organizations is not only an act of racial discrimination but can also incite the recurrence of such acts, thereby resulting in the creation of a vicious circle which reinforces racist attitudes and prejudices, which must also be condemned. 58. The OHCHR Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence also suggests a high threshold for restrictions on freedom of expression. 81 It outlines a six-part threshold test in keeping with the approach of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, taking into account the following factors: context; speaker; intent; content and form; extent of the speech act; a nd likelihood, including imminence. The consultative process under the Plan is aimed at enhancing understanding of the relationship between freedom of expression and incitement to hatred. OHCHR has expressed concerns regarding how Member States often refra in from punishing perpetrators of incidents in violation of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, at the same time, oversee de facto persecution through the abuse of vague domestic legislation, jurisprudence and policies on speech. 82 In the annual report to which the Plan is annexed, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights found that anti -incitement laws in countries worldwide were at times excessively narrow or vague. The Plan recommends that domestic legal frameworks on incitement to hatred expressly refer to article 20 (2) of the Covenant and include robust definitions 83 of key terms such as “hatred”, “discrimination”, “violence” and “hostility” as defined in the Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality. 84 59. The Special Rapporteur would like to note that criminalizing racist expression on its own could never fully address or remedy the persistence and perniciousness of racist expression. Consider the example of Europe, which, as a region, has commendably taken the most action to create an anti-hate-crimes regulatory framework. However, a recent report by the European Commission on the transposition and implementation of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA, providing criminal law protection against hate speech and hate crimes, notes that the domestic adoption of the provisions contained in the Decision is often incomplete and/or incorrect. 85 The report highlights that factors hindering the implementation of the Decision include practitioners’ insufficient knowledge of the relevant legislation. The European Network against Racism also noted that existing mechanisms within the institutions of the European Union fail to effectively monitor and sanction hate speech. As a result, the Special Rapporteur urges Member States to focus on adopting the necessary frameworks and ensuring their proper enforcement. __________________ 81 82 83 84 85 20/22 See A/HRC/22/17/Add.4. For details and documentation of the consultation process regarding the Rabat Plan of Action, see www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Articles19 -20/Pages /Index.aspx. See A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, para. 11. See A/67/357, paras. 44–46. Article 19, International Centre against Censorship, “Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality”, 30 April 2009. Available at https://www.article19.org/resources /camden-principles-freedom-expression-equality/. See also, E/CN.4/1996/39, annex; and A/67/357, paras. 39–45. European Parliament, Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, The European Legal Framework on Hate Speech, Blasphemy and Its Interaction with Freedom of Expression (Brussels, European Union, 2015). 18-12945