A/74/253 inform the practice of Member States. Significantly, the Committee recalls that the proscription of racist hate speech and the flourishing of freedom of expression are complementary and not the expression of a zero-sum game. In paragraph 45 of the general recommendation the Committee affirms that, instead, the rights to equality and freedom from discrimination, and the right to freedom of expression, should be fully reflected in law, policy and practice as mutually supportive human rights, as discussed in more detail below. 49. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects freedom of opinion and of expression, which may be restricted only as provided by law and when such restrictions are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Any restriction on freedom of speech must not only be a matter of necessity, but must be proportionately tailored to achieve the legitimate end that warrants the restriction. 34 Article 20 of the Covenant specifically obligates States parties to prohibit, by law, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The Human Rights Committee and a number of other human rights mechanisms have interpreted this provision as creating a high threshold, because limitations on speech must remain exceptional. However, when individuals or groups meet this high threshold – including in the context of anti-Semitic hate speech – States must hold these actors to account for their violations of international human rights law. 50. Freedom of expression is also enshrined in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has reiterated that freedom of expression is integrated into the Convention, and that the Convention contributes to a fuller understanding of the parameters of freedom of expression under international human rights law. To determine what racist expression should be punishable by law, the Committee stresses the importance of context, which includes: (a) the content and form of the speech; (b) the economic, social and political climate; (c) the speaker ’s position or status; (d) the reach of the speech; and (e) the objectives of the speech. 35 Member States, and even private actors such as the technology companies that often directly interface with racist and xenophobic content online, must remain vigilant in their identification of racist expression in national climates in which certain groups, including neo-Nazis, are openly committed to spreading and enforcing intolerance. The Committee warns that racist speech may sometimes rely on indirect language to disguise its targets or objectives, and may rely on coded symbolic communication to achieve its ends. Even incitement may be express or implied, through actions such as displays of racist symbols or the distribution of materials as well as words. 36 51. Member States must take urgent action to ensure that racist expression violating the standards set out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination are made punishable by law. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has recommended that the criminalization of forms of racist expression be reserved for serious cases, to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, that the application of criminal sanctions be governed by the __________________ 34 35 36 19-12969 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, paras. 33–35. See also, for example, Velichkin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/85/D/1022/2001). Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 35 (2013) on combating racist hate speech, paras. 4 and 15. Ibid., paras. 7 and 16. 15/19