A/HRC/16/53/Add.1 content (i.e. non-linear audiovisual media cervices, within the meaning of the corresponding European Union directive). In the event of a violation of this obligation, the only “sanction” applicable by the authorities was the obligation to make viewers/listeners aware that they had received biased or inaccurate information, or the obligation to remedy biases and/or inaccuracies in the presentation. It was apparent from Article 181 (5) of the Media Services and Mass Media Act that there was no possibility of applying any other sanction in this regard. The obligation to provide balanced coverage could be found in many legal systems throughout the world. In this context, Recital 102 of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council explicitly referred to the common practice of imposing the obligation on television broadcasters to present facts and events fairly. 145. The Government also pointed out that the requirement of balanced presentation had been in existence in the Hungarian legislation since 1996. The requirement was supported by the decisions of the Hungarian Constitutional Court; its precise content had been developed over the 15-year lifespan of the former media authority, and in the Hungarian courts. The Government stressed that courts performing judicial review concerning the related activities of the media authority were bound by this substantial body of constitutional jurisprudence – just as the authority itself. Given the fact that the precise content of the said requirement was well defined in case law, the Government stated that media content providers were not facing a new, “overly broad” or “vague” concept in this respect, the application of which may produce a “chilling effect” on them. The notion of human dignity 146. The application of the provisions of Article 14 (1) and 14 (2) of the Press and Media Act raised, in the Special Rapporteurs’ judgment, unjustified limitations on the right of freedom of expression, given the “overly broad grounds of limitation”, such as respect for human dignity. However, the Government indicated that the notion of human dignity was another well-defined notion in the Hungarian legal system, with numerous interpretative decisions by the Hungarian Constitutional Court, the former media authority and the Hungarian courts. Moreover, human dignity was explicitly referred to in the European audiovisual media legislation, particularly in the Directive on Audiovisual Media Services and in related recommendations by the European Parliament and the Council. The concept was also present in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. As a consequence, the legal concept of “human dignity” had become instrumental in combating racism, xenophobia and hate speech in Europe. Therefore the Government was convinced that its use in the Hungarian legislation was an important safeguard of democratic values, and in no way constituted an unjustified restriction on freedom of the press or freedom of expression. 147. As regards the Special Rapporteurs’ comment concerning defamation cases related to public officials and authorities, the Government noted that well-established case law from the Hungarian courts – based on a decision by the Hungarian Constitutional Court – clearly defined the limits and the scope of criticism that holders of public office must tolerate. The approach taken by the Constitutional Court and by the courts of Hungary was consistent with the Council of Europe declaration adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 February 2004 at the 872nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies on “freedom of political debate in the media”. In line with this declaration, the Hungarian legislation continued to fulfil the requirement that “political figures and public officials should only have access to those legal remedies against the media which private individuals have in case of violations of their rights by the media”. Against this background, the Government also noted that the exclusion of those holding public office from any form of legal remedy in the event of the violation of their dignity – as expressed in the Special Rapporteurs’ letter 31