Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security such a showing had not been required because the Court had accepted that Holocaust denial must “invariably” be seen as anti-Semitic.46 The African Court of Human Rights has also addressed the question of genocide denial in the context of a Rwandan law prohibiting the minimisation of genocide. In Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Rwanda, the Court considered the criminal conviction for genocide denial of a member of the political opposition. In a speech at a Rwandan genocide memorial, she made a comment about the importance of remembering Hutu victims (the Rwandan genocide primarily targeted Tutsis but also moderate Hutus).47 The Court noted that given Rwanda’s history, genocide denial laws could be proper but that in this case there was no indication that the politician had actually denied the genocide. It rejected the argument that her remarks should be read, in context, to endorse a theory which implied the genocide was merely ethnic conflict. Criminal sanctions, the Court noted, could not be imposed “merely on the basis of context” when the statements themselves were clear. 48 Subsequently, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights made a very similar finding regarding Rwanda’s conviction of two journalists, suggesting that while laws prohibiting genocide denial could in theory be proper, this could not justify convictions of journalists where there was no demonstration of how their articles amounted to genocide denial. 49 These cases suggest that Holocaust denial may be a special case, or at least that any such law for other genocides would have to be linked to a very specific cultural and social context where genocide denial or denial of similar crimes is used as a means of inciting hatred. Furthermore, any such laws must be crafted very precisely to avoid their application to legitimate historical and scholarly debate, against political critics or even to insulting speech which does not arise to the level of inciting hatred. Defamation Most media lawyers will likely have knowledge of defamation law under their own national systems. However, they may not be aware of the well-developed international standards in this area, which can offer important guidance on how to ensure that defamation laws respect freedom of expression while appropriately protecting reputations. Any legal restrictions on grounds of defamation should aim to protect the reputations of others, a legitimate aim under the second part of the three-part test for restrictions on freedom of expression. However, some defamation laws are not drafted with sufficient precision to Perinçek v. Switzerland, 15 October 2015 Application No. 27510/08, paras. 252-253, https://bit.ly/3UbgXaN. 24 November 2017, Application No. 003/2014, paras. 151-154, https://bit.ly/3zOtqJl. 48 Ibid., paras. 158-159. 49 Uwimana-Nkusi & Saidati Mukakibibi v. Rwanda, 21 October-10 November 2019, Communication No. 426/12, paras. 207-208, https://www.achpr.org/sessions/descions?id=293. 46 47 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 13