Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security pass the “provided by law” requirement or go beyond what is necessary and proportionate to protect reputations. This section first examines the issue of disproportionate penalties and criminal defamation laws and then discusses a range of issues arising in civil defamation cases. The next part concerns defamation proceedings against public officials and politicians, before ending with a review of laws designed to curtail the abuse of defamation laws via SLAPPs, or strategic litigation against public policy. Note that in referring to defamation, we refer generally to reputation-based offences, understanding that various legal systems may draw distinctions between offences such as insult, slander, calumny and so on. Criminal Sanctions and Disproportionate Penalties Criminal defamation laws, at least when they provide for imprisonment as a penalty, are not proper under international human rights law. Imprisonment as a sanction for defamation is always a disproportionate penalty because of the severity of depriving someone of their liberty and the fact that less intrusive civil remedies provide adequate protection for reputations. Furthermore, the weight of imprisonment as a sanction poses a serious risk of chilling speech beyond that which is harmful and silencing debate on matters of public interest. International human rights authorities have increasingly recognised this standard, finding that criminal defamation convictions violate the right to freedom of expression. For example, the Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 34, urged States to decriminalise defamation, noting that criminal laws should only apply in “the most serious of cases” and that “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” 50 Numerous other authoritative statements, such as from the special international mandates on freedom of expression, have also affirmed that imprisonment is a disproportionate penalty and/or called for eliminating criminal defamation entirely.51 The African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights has clearly affirmed that imprisonment is a disproportionate sanction for defamation (see the box below). This landmark judgment was General Comment No. 34, note 43, para. 47. See, for example, special international mandates on freedom of expression, 2002 Joint Declaration, https://bit.ly/3DHYj37; 2010 Joint Declaration, Tenth Anniversary Joint Declaration: Ten Key Challenges to Freedom of Expression in the Next Decade, https://bit.ly/3Uf9lny; Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa, note 16, Principle 22(4); Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1577(2007), and Towards Decriminalisation of Defamation, Resolution 1577 (2007), 4 October 2007, para. 17.1, https://bit.ly/3T5gSUJ; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 169 Resolution on Repealing Criminal Defamation Laws in Africa, ACHPR/Res.169(XLVIII)10, 24 November 2010, https://bit.ly/3Urm2ve. 50 51 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 14