ARTICLE-19-policy-on-prohibition-to-incitement

possible, avoid making statements that
promote discrimination or undermine
equality and intercultural understanding.
They should also include codes of integrity
for members of parliament and political
parties’ members.
An order to issue a public apology for a
statement or communication should also be
considered as a remedy, although apology
should not automatically presume the loss
of culpability.
In respect of public service broadcasters,
a framework for administrative sanctions
may support the obligation to avoid
communicating negative stereotypes of
individuals and groups. Administrative
sanctions may include the obligation to
issue an apology or correction or to provide
a right of reply; the obligation to allocate
broadcasting time to advertise the outcome
of an administrative decision; or the
imposition of fines.
Alternative remedies
In addition to civil and administrative law
remedies, <strong>ARTICLE</strong> <strong>19</strong> recommends that
States consider a wider range of possible
remedies when dealing with instances of
violence or discrimination targeting minority
or marginalised groups.
Alternative forms of redress, such as
mediation and other forms of dispute
resolution that ensure the full participation
of victims or those affected, can also
address some deficiencies in civil and
administrative systems. Although victims’
participation is expected in civil law
remedies, (e.g. in civil cases, it is a victim
who has to bring a case of discrimination
or an individual legal action), in many
instances, the possibilities for seeking
redress are limited due to prohibitive legal
fees and a lack of access to legal aid.
<strong>ARTICLE</strong> <strong>19</strong> suggests that in this respect,
States also consider the experience of the
truth and reconciliation mechanisms that
have gained prominence in many African
countries. We do not argue that the truth
and reconciliation process should take the
place of existing legal processes; instead,
they should be complementary to them. We
observe that one of the key factors of these
mechanisms has been the recognition of
the need to restore the human dignity of the
victims in both the eyes of society and in
their own eyes. It has been also recognised
that the direct participation of victims in
this process communicated the perspective
of the victims, not in the form of statistics
or state reports, but with a direct human
voice. Those who have been victims of
violations were given an opportunity, for
the very first time, to receive recognition
from what had previously been considered
a hostile State. In many instance, this led
to public acknowledgment of violations by
perpetrators (something that is often absent
in criminal processes) and this has triggered
43