150 Dictating the Internet: The independence of the judiciary is also an important consideration in assessing the effectiveness of oversight mechanisms. Such an assessment must also consider the scope of judicial power granted to the courts under domestic laws, including whether and how the laws criminalize speech which should not be criminalized and allow for executive overreach and large financial penalties. Legal systems must allow not only for judicial review of regulatory bodies in specific individual cases, but for review of a law itself, such as was the case in the Philippines’ Supreme Court’s review of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. The cases highlighted in this report suggest that the judiciary cannot always be relied upon as a sole oversight mechanism – particularly in countries where the judiciary is not independent. Meanwhile, even where the judiciary functions independently, the emergence of contemporary laws and regulations that apply specifically to online platforms increasingly require input, analysis and assessment by not only independent individuals with technical ICT expertise, but also academics, lawyers and members of civil society who can integrate a human rights-centred approach in reviewing cases which are brought under these new “offences”. Independent and impartial oversight mechanisms should be put in place to safeguard against infringements on the rights to freedom of expression and information online. v. Failure to provide effective remedy or accountability The fifth commonality – exacerbated by executive overreach and the absence of independent oversight mechanisms – is the absence of legal provisions for effective remedy, including judicial remedy, or accountability – which in turn explains how severe penalties were imposed on individuals in the first place. The right to effective remedy includes the need for adequate and effective legislative, administrative or other appropriate mechanisms to be incorporated within the provisions of a law to prevent violations of the rights to freedom of expression and information, and specific legal provisions guaranteeing prompt and effective remedies or reparation, including compensation, satisfaction, restitution and/or guarantees of non-repetition, should a court of law find that an individual’s rights were violated.579 579 ICJ, ‘The Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Gross Human Rights Violations: A Practitioners’ Guide, Revised Edition 2018’, pp. 53, 54.