Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security States also have positive obligations to work to combat hate speech and not merely to refrain from perpetrating it. Generally under the ICCPR, States have positive obligations to “adopt legislative, judicial, administrative, educative and other appropriate measures”, including to raise awareness of the ICCPR’s obligations among public officials. 34 Political leaders and parties should also take steps to combat hate speech. For example, political parties can adopt codes of conduct or put in place other measures to ensure their officials and candidates do not engage in hate speech.35 States may also bear some responsibility for the actions of non-State actors when State officials make comments which encourage their behaviour. Under human rights law, States are not directly responsible for the acts of private actors but failing to respond to private acts which harm human rights can amount to a violation of treaty obligations. For example, in the context of attacks against journalists, States must take actions to prevent, investigate, prosecute and provide redress for such attacks. In two notable cases, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that Venezuela’s failure to investigate properly harassment and attacks on the media, combined with intimidating statements against the media by government officials, amounted to a breach of Venezuela’s human rights obligations.36 While these were not hate speech cases, a similar reasoning could apply where senior officials make discriminatory or hateful statements, either in situations where States fail to bring charges against public officials in contexts where they engage in criminally sanctionable incitement hate speech, or where States fail to take other measures (such as providing training or an internal administrative sanctions system) to address hateful or discriminatory language by public officials. Public figures and particularly political figures also have their own right to freedom of expression, just like everyone. Political speech is afforded a high level of protection, even when some persons find the speech “unduly critical or even offensive”. 37 Statements by public figures which comment on social or political issues of a sensitive nature, without rising to the level of hate speech, should not be restricted on hate speech grounds. When assessing the legitimacy of a hate speech conviction of a public figure, courts should consider the person’s stature, influence and audience reach, in line with the principles of the Rabat Plan’s threshold test. However, whether the speech occurred as part of a political debate may also be a relevant contextual factor. Here are two examples of how the European Court of Human Rights has weighed these considerations. Article 2 of the ICCPR; and General Comment No. 31, note 32, para. 7. International mandates for promoting freedom of expression, 2021 Joint Declaration on Politicians and Public Officials and Freedom of Expression, 20 October 2021, para. 3(1). 36 Perozo and Others v. Venezuela, 28 January 2009, Series C, No. 195, https://bit.ly/3DL6WtX; and Ríos v. Venezuela, 28 January 2009, Series C, No. 194, https://bit.ly/3FR0eoS (only available in Spanish). 37 2021 Joint Declaration on Politicians and Public Officials and Freedom of Expression, note 35, para. 2(a)(i). 34 35 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 10