A/HRC/16/53/Add.1 members of Parliament, or the dominant political party. In this regard, the Special Rapporteurs noted that 263 out of 386 Members of Parliament (or 68 percent) are from the ruling FIDESZ-KDNP list. Additionally, the Special Rapporteurs are concerned that the financial sanctions to be imposed for a violation of legislation related to the media are determined by the Authority, rather than an independent judiciary. 138. The Special Rapporteurs indicated that they stand ready to provide the Government with support and assistance regarding the concerns outlined in this communication, in accordance with the mandates given to them by the Human Rights Council that the Special Rapporteurs provide advisory services or technical assistance when requested by the State concerned. The Special Rapporteurs also requested information from the Government clarifying how it intends to address the concerns raised in this communication. (b) Responses from the Government dated 2 February 2011 139. In its letter of 2 February 2011, the Government of Hungary thanked the Special Rapporteurs for their letter of 18 January 2011, in which they had drawn the Government’s attention to certain aspects of the new Hungarian legislation relating to media services. The Government communicated the official view as regards the concerns expressed in the Special Rapporteurs’ letter. 140. The Government emphasized that it was firmly committed to freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Hungary had expressed this commitment not only by taking part in the framework of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but also by acceding to other important international legal instruments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Based on the Government’s international commitments, freedom of expression had also been recognised as one of the most important fundamental values of the country’s legal system by a series of landmark decisions in the Hungarian Constitutional Court. 141. According to the Government, the purpose of the recent legislation relating to media services (Act CIV of 2010 on the Freedom of the Press and the Fundamental Rules Governing Media Content [the Press and Media Act] and Act CLXXXV of 2010 on Media Services and Mass Communication [Media Services and Mass Media Act]) was to safeguard freedom of the press and freedom of expression, while at the same time achieving a corresponding balance with other fundamental rights – such as the right to human dignity, the rights of minors, and consumers’ rights. The Government believed that by recently adopting a set of new acts related to the media it had secured this balance in accord with its international commitments, most notably with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 142. With the above in mind, the Government reacted to the comments in the Special Rapporteurs’ letter related to particular aspects of the recent Hungarian media legislation: Obligations related to information and news services 143. The Special Rapporteurs had quoted in their letter Article 13 (1) of the Press and Media Act. The Government noted that the quoted English translation of the text was incorrect at this point. The provision, in effect, was a declarative one. It established that the totality of the whole Hungarian media system shall provide adequate information to citizens. Contrary to the interpretation in the Special Rapporteurs’ letter, it did not provide for any legally enforceable obligation for each and every media content provider. 144. As regards other provisions related to balanced presentation of news, the Government emphasized that this was not a legal requirement for the print media or internet news providers under the present Hungarian legislation. According to Article 13 (2) of the Press and Media Act, it was applicable only to radio, television and television-like media 30