distinction between three types of expression: expression that constitutes a criminal offence; expression that is not criminally punishable but may justify a civil suit or administrative sanctions; and expression that does not give rise to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions but still raises a concern in terms of tolerance, civility and respect for the rights of others. Mr. McGonagle also noted that the Rabat Plan of Action establishes a threshold test for expressions that can legitimately be criminalised under international human rights law and the points of attention are: the context in which an expression is made, the position of the speaker, the intent of the speaker, the content or form of the expression, the extent of the speech and the likelihood of causing harm, including imminence of causing harm. Dr. McGonable also referred to article 4 of the ICERD and the fact that it establishes requirements to states that go considerably further than prohibiting certain specified types of expression, as per articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR. Article 4 of the ICERD declares certain types of expression punishable by law and states are required to criminalize them. However, this provision should be implemented taking into account article 5, which sets out safeguards for a range of human rights, including freedom of expression. He added that Recommendation n°35 seeks to realign article 4, with contemporary interpretations of the ICCPR and places emphasis on a number of key focuses within the media and internet environment; stressing the importance of informed, ethical and objective media, including social media and Internet; appropriate media legislation in line with international law; codes of professional ethics and press codes; media representations of groups, no stereotyping; local empowerment through media pluralism; access and ownership of media; and self-regulation and codes of ethics for Internet Service Providers. Dr. McGonable concluded that there is a complex system of international standards, which were developed in a general capacity. He mentioned that it is important to realise the susceptibility of minority groups to hateful rhetoric, particularly online and the added harms that are caused by the speed and intensity of online expression and the permanence of such expression in an online environment. He noted that adequate expressive opportunities for media can be a way of ensuring that their perspectives are disseminated and counter hate speech. It is important to be aware of the specific features of online technologies and to recalibrate regulatory approaches where appropriate, in order to take then into account and to ensure that the rights of minorities and the right to freedom of expression are effective also in an online environment. Dr. Sangyun Kim, Professor of law at the Graduate School of Ryukoku University referred to the fact that the Japanese government joined the ICERD in 1995. He noted that Korean residents in Japan have been victims of discrimination and they have been victims of hate speech. In 2016, the first anti-discrimination law was enacted in Japan, but this law does not stipulate a prohibition nor a punishment of hate speech. He added that some countries, like the USA and Japan, do not regulate hate speech. Since hate speech crosses country borders in the digital age, it is important to establish internationally provisions that prohibit and criminalise hate speech. He added that without criminal regulation of hate speech in each country, it is very difficult to effectively overcome hate speech and establish this in a digital age. 12