Myanmar: Outline of Rules Affecting Freedom of Expression A number of international authorities have stated that criminal defamation as a whole represents a breach of the right to freedom of expression. For example, in their 2002 Joint Declaration, the special international mandates on freedom of expression stated: "Criminal defamation is not a justifiable restriction on freedom of expression; all criminal defamation laws should be abolished and replaced, where necessary, with appropriate civil defamation laws." 10 Although States should decriminalise defamation to guarantee fully freedom of expression, at a minimum, defamation regimes should never allow for imprisonment and any fines or damages should not be excessive or punitive in nature. Defamation laws must respect several standards if they are to be legitimate as restrictions on freedom of expression. First, they should only protect actual reputations – for example of individuals or entities with the right to sue and be sued – and not be used to protect objects – such as State or religious symbols, flags or national insignia – or public bodies. Various defences should be available against an allegation of defamation, including that the impugned statement was true, that it was an opinion or that it was reasonable in all of the circumstances to make the statement, even if it ultimately proves to be inaccurate. Statements made in the course of proceedings before legislative bodies or courts, and fair and accurate reports on those statements, should be protected, as should good faith statements made in the performance of a legal, moral or social duty or interest. Public officials should enjoy less protection from criticism than others in view of the importance of free and open debate on matters of public interest, and this should be reflected in the application of any defamation law. It also follows from this reasoning that dedicated insult or ‘lèse majesté’ laws are particularly problematic from a human rights perspective and, where they exist, should always be repealed. Finally, remedies for defamation should aim to redress the harm done, not to punish the party who made the statement. Non-pecuniary remedies, such as rights of correction or reply, should be prioritised and any monetary awards should be strictly proportionate to the harm done. Consideration should be given to putting an overall cap on the monetary damages that may be awarded, particularly in jurisdictions where there is evidence of the imposition of punitive damage awards. 2.2.2. Privacy Most countries have civil laws providing protection for privacy, just as they do for reputation. This is legitimate, and indeed necessary to protect the right to privacy, as long as these laws are appropriately circumscribed and provide for adequate protection against abuse. For example, four different types of privacy interests the breach of which should give rise to a civil cause of action were identified in an influential American law review article: 10 Adopted 10 December 2002, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/8/f/39838.pdf. The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 9