 Good afternoon or good morning to everybody, depending on where you're connecting from. My name is Kimana Sobotta-Fulsa, and I'm the acting head of international ideas constitution building program. It is really such a pleasure to welcome you all to the third edition of international ideas webinar series on constitutional design innovations. With these series, as you know, we're trying to identify and discuss innovative constitutional design approaches, mostly focused on institutional design, but also on ways in which these institutions may be able to respond to some of the new and upcoming challenges that we're facing today. Let me perhaps just very quickly introduce international idea for those of you who may not be familiar with this institution. International idea is an intergovernmental organization with now 34 member states, if I'm not mistaken, and, and we have the sole mandate to support democratic institutions and processes around the world. Our headquarters is in Stockholm, Sweden, our program on constitution building is based in the hate Netherlands, but we have offices in 10 countries and more around the world. Mainly on supporting elections and electoral management bodies, parliaments and political parties, and of course peace and constitution building processes. Now, today we will be talking about the role of constitutional media commissions in addressing both disinformation and misinformation and advancing with balanced media coverage. And of course, disinformation and misinformation are very highly complex phenomena, compounded of course by an increasingly globalized and interconnected world. The diversification of media channels from newspapers, radio, television to internet and social media has meant that the general public can share but also receive any type of information and disinformation all the time and must. Disinformation and misinformation do actually represent critical challenges to democracy in general but also to peaceful coexistence on the one hand or even to nascent processes of reconciliation many contexts that are actually attempting to break away from conflict dynamics. And of course, the debate is longstanding about whether or not the use of social media or large companies controlling the use of social media should be regulated and how. There are international governments, as well as intergovernmental organizations can do about this phenomenon. Our intent in this webinar is a bit more limited and that we want to examine the way in which national constitutional media commissions are able to deal with the spread of misinformation and disinformation and also protect or counteract citizens accessing on behalf of this type of information and ultimately, perhaps even undermining nascent, as well as develop democracies. And we will be looking at four different cases for very interesting different cases, including these types of commissions in Ghana, in Armenia and Poland and Indonesia, both their membership and their mandate but also ways in which they might have adapted to this technological revolution that I was talking about. And so my colleague Adam Abebe will moderate the session today and will also give some introductory remarks and he's joined by an excellent panel that I will very briefly introduce. Starting with Professor quasi prempin renowned comparative constitutional experts and international advisor. And also the executive director of the Ghana Center for democratic development. Professor Miroslav Roblesky, director of the constitutional international and European law department at the officer of the commissioner for human rights and Warsaw Poland. Professor had your gildish of the University of Cartel, head of the research master in law and policy of the African Union and also elected member and general reporter of the African Union Commission on international law. Last but certainly not least, Boris Navasarlian has had a long career as a journalist in Armenia. And as the president of the Yerevan press club, the first independent association of journalists in Armenia since 1995. So, welcome to you all. I very much look forward to your presentations and of course to the discussion that will follow. And Adam will take it from here Adam, the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you very much Kimana. I want to also thank the panelists. We really really appreciate your time. I also want to thank the audience. We had quite a large number of registrants so they will be streaming in as as we speak. So we were just speaking before this that you know this is an opportunity and challenge that the new world or the new technology present. And as Kimana said, there is a shift as a fundamental shift from an era of offline world the offline world to an era of an online world. And then this has obviously brought about its own challenge, its own opportunities and challenge and in particular, we live in an age of, you know, most recent ones and we live in an age of deep fakes and micro targeting and Donald Trump's favorite word, fake news. So there's there's particularly in terms of misinformation in terms of disinformation. The new technologies have essentially collapsed the barriers to communicating to mass audience no limits in terms of geography. No limits in terms of reach. And so what we want to discuss today is how and what constitutions can do about about the challenge that that disinformation that misinformation represent and also the challenge of ensuring balanced coverage, balanced media coverage. And what can constitutions do about that. And in particular, we want to discuss one innovation. You know we've called them media commissions but they have different names in different places. But what is unique about them is if you for instance look at the media commission in Ghana. It was made in the era of in the offline era. And how it is, it has to address the challenge of an online era. And so what we want to discuss today is whether, you know there's this idea, at least in the in the human rights world. There's this idea or preference to the idea of self regulation or self moderation for for the convince conventional media, but obviously that has at least in my opinion not worked. So what can these media commissions do in terms of first addressing the challenge of disinformation misinformation, but also in terms of ensuring better more balanced and more comprehensive media coverage. In that regard, we also want to discuss and this is our, our constitutional angle. What does does does the constitutional status of these commissions does it give them an advantage, or does it disadvantage them in terms of discharging these two fundamental objectives within the broader framework of advancing media freedom. We have an illustrious panel, and, you know, countries with very very interesting stories to tell. Unfortunately, we have to limit the presentations to 10 minutes. But we're going to go first to Professor quasi prempah, who will tell us about the Ghana media commission, and we'll be very interested to hear briefly about the commission itself. And secondly, how they have tried to challenge the to address the challenge we mentioned, and importantly how their constitutional status place within the broader framework quasi you have 10 minutes. Thank you very much. Thank you and good afternoon here from a crack. So the Ghana constitution has been in force since January 1993, which is when Ghana transitioned to democracy after about a decade of military rule. And in this constitution, which is the fifth, fifth constitution since independence in 1957. There are the usual standard provisions guaranteeing the rights to freedom of speech and expression, which includes in this constitution is defined to include the right to freedom of the press and the media. In addition to that, there is a separate chapter, a whole new chapter in the constitution, chapter 12, which is devoted exclusively to freedom and independence of the media, that's how it's titled. And in this chapter of the constitution, there's provision for the establishment by an act of parliament of a 15 member national media commission. So this is the commission where we're talking about, and the statute that implemented this constitutional provision was passed during the very early years of the new constitution, which is in 1993. Now, you have to note that this comes against the backdrop of a history of state owned and government controlled media. So to this time, there had not been any private broadcast media, we have had private pressing data, creating the national media commission but no private broadcast or electronic media. The first one appeared in 1995, which is after the constitution have come into force. So not only was the national media commission created against the backdrop of this offline. As I don't call it offline mode of communication but it was also against the backdrop of exclusively state owned broadcast media. This of course has all changed in more recent years, I think my most current numbers. Ghana has about 137 television stations. 629 authorized radio stations. I mean this is for a population of about a little over 30 million. So it's in the state owned media, while it's continuous to operate is actually has an increasingly diminished share of the market. In terms of the audience markets in the media. Now the national media commission is established as one of the autonomous or independent commissions under the constitution. So it has the standard provisions for independence from the government. Its membership is composition dictated by the constitution. The overwhelming majority of the members are not appointed by government are nominated by specifically named civil society and other professional bodies and religious bodies. I think the government presidents nominates president appoints to parliament, which is multi party, not miss three out of the 15 so they are definitely the minority and the commission members get to choose their own chair person, which in the context is significant because chair persons tend to assume disproportionate powers within our context. And then the national media commission the constitution makes clear that the commission also is to be subject only to the constitution, not to be subject to the direction of any in the personal authority. The members have a three year term are renewable once so there's a two year term limits. The political half of the state the president and parliament are four year terms. So the term of the commission tends to overlap the regimes that the main functions of the commission. Again, looking at it again the backdrop of the history of state on media is to insulate state owned media from government control number one. The measures to ensure that presence responsible for state owned media afford fair opportunities for presentation of divergent and dissenting opinion to promote and ensure freedom and independence of the media, and to take all appropriate measures to ensure highest journalistic standards, the mass media. These are the four main functions of the media commission as enumerated in the constitution and the statute. There's also two companion provisions here that are important in the constitution. That's article 55 cross 11 in our constitution states that the state shall afford fair opportunity to all political parties to present their program to the public by ensuring equal access to the state owned media. And close 12 says our presidential candidates during elections shall be given the same amount of time and space in the state owned media to present their programs. And the media commission is also the one that enforces these other two companion provisions of the constitution. You know in assessing the media commission. Essentially, the media commission sofa, when you look at how it's performed, it's been generally successful in protecting editorial editorial independence and autonomy of state owned media. And it's been very good at doing because it has managed to ward off attempts by government to revert to the old model, which is state owned, and therefore government control so while we continue to have state owned media. The element of government control has been, I think quite successfully neutered by the National Media Commission it's managed to actually get the government, keep the government away from trying to influence and dictate. And this was part of the outcome of editors to state owned media, and the like, and this was part of the outcome of the very first successful lawsuit that the media commission one against the president in 1996. So they've managed to do that very well there, even in that area however they remain because the government continues to own the state's interest. That's where it comes to, you know, the line between ownership and control. For example, the government has attempted sometimes to divest or sell parts of its interest. And the media commission has resisted almost on the theory that there must be some state owned media, the constitution presumes that the mother said state owned media and therefore the government can just diverse his ownership so that this that's ongoing battle. The idea of journalistic independence, integrity and professionalism that has been a little bit more contentious and that's where we get into regulating conduct and content. This information fake news, other things. The NMC attempted in 2000, and I think 14 or there about to enact broad regulation, some content, some broad broadcasting regulations which would have affected context that was challenged by the owners of independent broadcast media. The Supreme Court ruled that in fact those regulations constituted unconstitutional prior restraint. So that has since that time that the media commission has been disabled, essentially from regulating broadly conduct and content in the media space. What this has been limited to doing is essentially using a statutory complaints procedure to, you know, adjudicate administratively complaints that are brought against media and journalists for by particular, either individuals or usually by government officials and government for things that are set on published by these media houses. So there is there is that process, it is not compulsory that you use that process but once you use it, the law requires that you exhaust that NMC process before you can have records to the course. And that you have found a number of journalists and media houses have been complaints have been launched against them before the media commission for various things that they have published. And the media commission has the power to the audience that it can impose include retraction correction, apology, a right to rejoin that and sometimes it has never been that but it can also impose some form of disciplinary action. If there is a violation of the code of ethics of the particular professional group. The media commission, I mean, the mandate of the commission extends not only to complaints against journalists or media houses but also complaints by journalists and media houses against government. That second leg of its mandates though it's been quite powerful. There are a number of complaints launched against governments in the in not before the commission but generally attacks against journalists have increased in more recent years and the media commission has generally been powerless to act in those cases. But one area that I think also implicates the subject matter of this conversation is pluralism and, and again this information of the like. The media commission is not the only player in this space, while it is the constitutionally mandated body. We're talking about here. There is also established by statute in national communications authority. It is not an independent constitutional body, but it is directly responsible for the allocation of spectrum, and therefore for the regulation of the operations, the technical and other operational aspects of radio and of television and of electronic media, which is, social media and internet. So, in addition to the NMC, and I don't think that anybody could have contemplated at a time the NMC was being provisioned. This was being written, it was not contemplated that we would be in this in this era, maybe if it had been contemplated then a different kind of regime, a regular regime would have been provided for. But very early on in the, in the life of the Constitution, as I said, the private media evolve. And for them, there was initially one that attempted to evolve without license, and was stopped on the theory that you needed, you know, the spectrum was a public resource, it had to be allocated it's a scarce public resource had to be allocated in some orderly fashion. And that was the basis for establishing the National Communications Authority, which has now become a competitor institution to the National Media Commission. The National Media Commission therefore doesn't really seem to have a lot of role when it comes to the pluralism in the general media space. And ensure pluralism in opinion, diversity of opinion within state owned media, but in terms of how pluralistic and diverse the whole media space turns out is the National Communications Authority and how it allocates the spectrum that determines that. And that has been really this traditional and traditional fight between these two bodies. So we have a situation for example where the National Media Commission has been powerless in the face of the National Communications Authority, shutting down certain radio stations on the grounds that they have been in the terms of the alliances, and had not missed a certain to establish your obligations like payment of fees, payment of taxes and the like, you know, and and that included recently a very prominent position radio station. And also the general ownership rules regarding spectrum ownership are pretty lax. So you have had a situation where there's huge concentration of media in the hands of politically or party affiliated radio stations. You've had that kind of a situation. So the NMC in Ghana really as far as in terms of this information and this information goes, because it has been so far prevented by by by the stream court from enacting broad regulation of that area. It has had to resort to just case by case, complaints, triggered education, so to speak, in other to deal with that problem. It's its ability to really regulate this information on that broad scale is currently almost almost not there. I understand that they're still working. They're trying to work through a new set of regulations. They've come to some kind of an understanding with the National Compliance Authority, and the two are trying to cooperate to see if, you know, they recently announced an MOU between them trying to see what's who is who when it comes to regulating this area this information, fake news and the like. During election time at the National Media Commission has done a lot more work, mostly following on the use of civil society, they've done a lot more work in this area, trying to regulate speech, but it's normally by moral situation they publish a list of our latest list of media houses that are basically churning out offensive material and that kind of stuff. And there's a lot of fact checking. Also done by civil society, permanently the West Africa Media Foundation which is based in Accra. That's a lot of fact checking of these things by the commission itself. Has had very little influence on that space by the very nature of the structure and its mandate and more and more the National Compliance Authority, which is regime controlled is the one that looks like able to assert that authority hasn't yet used it to to to regulate fake news or obvious information but that's used it to regulate the nature of diversity and the structure of the industry. Our posts here, maybe my terminates are up, then we can have a discussion later. No, thank you very much prof. I think you make a very interesting points. Perhaps what I could imply from this is that the fact that the Constitution was adopted at a particular time meant that the mandate of the Commission was was restricted. And that then gave unscrupulous politicians to set up alternative competitive structure that they have more control over right so I think there's an element of weak institutional design that that kind of played into into the the hands of the politicians, but very good to hear at least that it's playing a significant role in terms of ensuring that there's balanced media coverage at least from from institutions that are sponsored and funded with with with taxpayers money. Thank you very much and we'll I'm sure there will be questions and we'll come back. And I have started to be lax with time so we'll try and give you more time, the rest of you more time as well. So we have a professor Miroslav Roblusky. Sorry, my, my Polish is very very bad. But thank you again for joining us and Poland also has a similar commission. And it's newer, and it is also one of the countries where that has at least, you know, from media coverage and all has challenged has faced the challenge of both of balance media coverage but also potentially of of misinformation and disinformation Prof tell us, you know how why you know what tell us a little bit about the Commission, what its constitutional status has meant has it protected it has it allowed it to discharge its functions, particularly in terms of this information and misinformation. Thank you. Thank you very much. I can assure you your pronunciation of my name is very good so maybe you can try with Polish. So, to be brief, I will present an outsider's view, because I work for the Commissioner for Human Rights which is the ombudsman institution this is the universal institution for the protection of human rights. I've been working for years also for media and radio and press, but I never work for the media commission so therefore I, this is the outsider's view, however, I can say that maybe a short historical background is maybe and we'll be valuable that with the end of communist era in 1989. I shifted to free democratic society, living behind state owned radio and television and in probably 95% also state owned press. Poland under the communist regime had also an office of censorship. So this is a for this was a formal censorship regarding all media culture and all kinds of information. So therefore this was a state organized disinformation system. Of course, it was not about producing fake news, but about keeping in shadow those information which were not, I would say, good for the government. So, therefore, the, the initiative of God but off with Wasnost, yes, the transparency of the region was probably one of the main points of the system system collapse. Through how the system operated was not very profitable for companies to be very diplomatic. With the constitution new constitution of 1997, you rightly said that Poland gained a new institution, the national radio and television broadcasting council. As you see, this is a council independent constitutionally mandated institution protecting freedom of information, freedom of speech and safeguard, which safeguards also the generally how the constitution says public interest. This was radio and television. There is no organization as regards the press, or other kinds of media, the self regulation initiative are present, but they are very weak. I'd rather say there is no such self regulation system. Of course, it determines the strengths and rather weaknesses in that area. However, the the so the national broadcasting council was an is responsible for public media and actually it is a decisive it was for many years a decisive body because then the council elected by parliament in two thirds and the president in one third nominated in kinds of buffers so in a competition organized method and members of boards and supervisory boards of public television and radio companies. So, 16 vibrate ship, a radio and television companies and where country wide television and radio. Actually, in 2015, the right wing governments of law and justice sized the political power, and they decided to circumvent the constitutional body by establishing a new council. The council, which is 100% controlled by by currently ruling politicians. National media council, the name is similar. It's composed directly by the deputies. It is about the nominated by by the parliament. And therefore, there is no competition system, but it is a direct transmission of the political will to the national new national media council. Which elects directly the presidents of the of the television and radio companies. It is said to say that especially public television plays a major role in proliferating government policies, but not impartial information. Many people compare the main news channel to the old news from the communist times, of course it is the content is totally different. But the totally, totally one side of the political scene is is present. The other, when present is always criticized. And it is the system which is with value violates constitution. I can say it because this is the, it was the motion of the Commission of Human Rights, which declare the constitutional court declared certain organization of the legislation as being unconstitutional. And the Parliament and the government did nothing. As regards implementing the system and even the national broadcasting castle state silence. For for many, for many years. It is even more that government finance smearing campaigns against judges, maybe you are aware on the rule of the crisis in Poland regarding judiciary organization of the judiciary. And it was publicly finance foundation, which organized this campaign. And we just, you can say it's a paradox that public television being criticized for this one stream attitudes can bring it to the court. So, actually, public television tend to react with slaps. Being finance from public resources. They can, of course, afford big law firms and prosecute the critics, including, including the former former ombudsman. So this is something which goes far beyond imagination. I think we've, we've, we've had for for many years. I can say that also, this is quite a. Maybe this, this notion will be repeated today, many times, but as regards pandemics and COVID-19, the government plays on two pianos. One, of course, they educate that vaccination is important, but from many politicians value the freedom of decision and such, I would say, the disinformation connected with vaccination. resulted in only half of Polish society being vaccinated. And we reach currently up to 500 death tolls per day. Which is a, of course, horrible thing. I can continue. I already crossed the time limits. Of course, there are some initiatives by the National Bird Cancer Council. They commission reports regarding the fight with disinformation. The council tends to implement your direct audio visual directive. Just yesterday, a declaration on the media education was signed together with the Minister of Education, but I have an impression that they are much more formal and bureaucratic activities than the real will to fight disinformation and misinformation. So, I will stop here. Thank you. Thank you very much, Professor. Indeed, I think, you know, I don't want to create parallels but I think there is some connection, just like in Ghana, the, you know, despite the presence of a constitutional entity that has actually not stopped some political groups from setting up certain entities that either duplicate and even sometimes undermine actively undermine the mandate of the constitutionally established institutions. I think this is a challenge, I guess, for constitutional drafters. How can they anticipate these possible measures, these possible scenarios and respond to them. That's one. And secondly, I think also the point you made about not only that the, you know, there is, there is trouble addressing the issue of disinformation and all, but the commission has not even managed to ensure balanced media coverage even by state-owned authority. And I think I particularly found interesting that some of these state authorities actually use state money to pursue legal cases again against critics. But very interesting indeed. So you have a constitutional setup, which has gaps and governments have taken advantage of that. Thank you very much. Indeed, I'm sure there will be questions when we when we get there. Mr. Hagele Golda, do you want to come in and we know that Tunisia, the Tunisian constitution provided an institution, you know, there's a dedicated commission, but this commission actually existed before the constitution was there. So in a way, it's an interesting case study to compare how, you know, before and after the constitutional framework that has made a difference. And how has addressed the challenge of one ensuring balanced media coverage. And then secondly, also responding to modern challenge of disinformation and misinformation. You have the floor, the virtual floor. Thank you. Thank you so much. Good evening, everybody. Can you see my PowerPoint? You can see it. Okay, thank you so much. I listened carefully to the colleagues and your entities from Ghana and from Poland. And I think that the experience of Tunisia also is very similar. However, we have some specificities. So as you said, in Tunisia, we have this independent high commission for audiovisual communication, which is called Haika in French acronyms since 2011. And I will try in my presentation to tell you about five points. I will begin with the context, the evolution of the legal instruments that instituted this commission. I will tell you about the mandate and the composition of this commission. I will tell you about the added value, what are the positive points of the ICA, and I will tell you about the new challenges facing this Tunisian commission and what can be the recommendations. You can find the website of the ICA and you can find more information on it, both in Arabic and in French language. So as you said from the beginning, I think that such constitutional authorities in our countries and especially in countries like Tunisia, in a phase of transitional democracy. Such commissions are a counter power. They have a role, they regulate, they give control, they control media, and at the same time, they try to make a balance with politics against totalitarianism. I think it's very important also to tell you that in Tunisia, it is something which is new since 2011. We are the country who begins the revolution on what is called the Arab Spring. And I think 10 years after we are in 2021, the only good thing in our country is that we preserve it, the questions of liberty of expression and freedom of speech. This is, I think, the only thing we had as a plus value, as a positive point after 10 years. We have a lot of crisis, such in politics, in economy, we have not a good balance with the questions of terrorism. However, the only thing we defended till the end was the liberty of expression and such authorities, as I said, has a role. This is a little bit of history, even if it is tiny, but I tried to explain the main important dates. Before 2011, we do not have any commission to regulate medias. We have in 1975, the press rule, it is a code that does not at all give liberties or guarantee liberties. And nowadays, after 2011, it was abolished and amended. So we have also this question of Arabic countries or African countries in general, the ones in which you have the president for 20 years, for 13 years, they need and they try to control medias. One party, you have one vision, you have just to be careful with the words, with the things you put on your radio or on your TV, with your programs and everything, you have the censorship, and there is a lot of influence of politics in media and the liberty of expression. However, as I told you, since 2011, we had something that changed totally. And with two degrees, the decree of 2011, we began with the area of liberty of expression. And we have the date of three May 2013, we instituted the commission of the Audiovisual Tunisian Commission, and this commission, as you said, it is right, it's created before the Constitution of 2014. However, till now, we do not have any law that organize this commission. For instance, it is only the decree law of 2011 that organize and give an idea about the main mandates and the composition and the role of this commission. And in 2020, it was since one year, there was a second draft of the law that was inserted in front of the parliament. However, maybe you have an idea that Indonesia, since 25 of July 2021, this year, this summer, the president of the Republic had decided to suspend the parliament. He decided to dismiss the prime minister and he decided to change the government. So for instance, we do not have any parliament, so everything is done by decree law. This is a little bit about the framework and as I told you, I think that 10 years after we are very proud of our liberty of expression and maybe this is the only one, the only success or the only positive point we had after the dictatorship of Ben Ali, the second president of Tunisia. So this is a little bit a sum up of what we have as text, as I told you, and nowadays, the authority, the commission is having eight years on the experience of Tunisia is young. If we compare it to other experiences, it is a young body. However, I can tell you that the assessment is very nice and they are doing very wonderful work. Number two will go through the composition and the rule of our commission. These are the beginners, the first commissioners of the commission, and these are the new ones, the ones who exist now. I can tell you about parity, gender, and I can tell you also about the question of the multidisciplinary. This is the composition. We have one judge from the administrative corps and one judicial judge, we have two judges, plus three members who are nominated each by the most representative press professional organizations, the most representative audiovisual professional organization, and the most representative media editors professional organization, plus four other members who have individually submitted their applications, and they should come from the specialized fields of law, finance, social science, and press. So this composition is very nice, because it is multidisciplinary and it is very important when we are dealing with controlling mass media. And we have also the question of parity between women and men. All these persons, the 11 members have to be designated by the parliament. So, and it is done, as I told you in 2013 by the first parliament after the revolution, for instance, we do not have any parliament. What this constitutional body is doing, who are they? It is independent, number one, this is a very important notion in constitutional law. These such commissions have to be independent, neutral. It is a constitutional body. So our constitution in the article 127, they provides for an audiovisual communication commission, and it has constitutional value. This is very important because, as I told you, we are dealing with human rights, with democracy, with state of law, and these things have to be inserted in the constitution. What is the mission? Mainly two things. Number one, they care and they regulate the audiovisual media landscape into India. Number two, they seek to promote the culture of modification to establish media independence. And they also give the license for the new televisions and the new radios. I can tell you that after 2011, we have such a wave of liberty and freedom, more than new 60 radios, more than new 12 TV channels in Tunisia. And this is also positive as we are encouraging the liberty of expression. However, I have to tell you also that liberty of expression is a responsibility. It is not only a right. It is also an obligation and you have something about ethics, something about public order. And this is also the main important mission of the independent high commission to regulate, to control, to put some assess, you cannot exceed some values, some principles because of liberty of expression and liberty of freedom and of speech. So it is important also to know about our limits and this is very important, especially that Tunisia is a country that has traditions, we are really a conservative country and we are a Muslim country. So sometimes we have some excess after 2011 and the independent high commission has a very important role to do the balance, how to give freedoms of speech, liberties, but at the same time they control and they give this regulation so that we cannot exceed. Don't forget also that in Tunisia we have the context of terrorism in 2016, we have a context of very sensitive context of combating and fighting this terrorism so mass media also they have to be careful with fake news and sometimes these news can totally have to instrument and instrumentalize the reality. Also we can just have here some points of what are the missions of this commission. They can complete the terms of reference specifying duties and rights of licensees. They can monitor the compliance of establishments with these legal and behavioral conditions and take the necessary measures in case of violation of these rules. In my opinion, regarding the designation of heads of general managers at the head of public media institution, and all these are regulatory and disciplinary powers, plus they have also advisory powers. I told you they have a website and through the website, the citizen and any Tunisian can go and fill in the formula and they can just tell the commission that there was a program in which we have hate, for example, speech or there is something which is hurting the sensitivity of the public order or something like that so you see that this commission is in interaction with people with Tunisian people with people who are the ones who consume television and radio. What is the added value of the Tunisian commission since its creation. Maybe I can just give you, because of the time the main important advantages and positive points, they can protect freedom of expression and information. The question of plurality, diversity, a balanced audiovisual media landscape as you said this is the title of our workshop shop nowadays today and this is very important to reinforce the values of human rights. All the revolution in Tunisia was done for human rights for dignity for the minimum of human rights so these such commissions who are just created for these issues are there to defend these questions. I tell you that the ones who are in the commission, the members of the commission are very respectful people, they are independent, they do not have any interaction with politics and most of them have their career in human rights, in defence and pacifist. So number two it should also ensure the independence of public media institutions from all forms of interference. This is very important point ensure the neutrality of media products and the fair distribution of audiovisual communication services and the diversity of views and opinions. This is a very important point and I will switch when I go to the challenge is to tell you how they can really ensure the independence of public media institutions and they can give you the, the example of Nesma TV I will tell you about that after. In Nesma TV, this is a television on the head of whom there is a politician and he's compared to Berlusconi in Italy. He is the one who have the second more powerful party in the parliament, and he is the owner of this channel, and he didn't at all regulate or give some regulations on his channel so it is now stopped and Nesma TV cannot broadcast after 25 of July because nowadays things are moving and parliament is no more there and this person left Tunisia and I think he's in Algeria now. Between the positive points also Tunisia is in a process of opening up the media landscape seeking to develop more independent and diverse media and this is new for us before 2011 we have as I told you only one unique mass media which she the national TV. And they are all the time focusing on banalies activities not more nowadays it's very important to allow other channels other great use to have this possibility to express themselves, however, as I told you, we have also the responsibility to stop ourselves when it is about ethics. When it is about moral when it is about public order. So this new freedom is still written and several challenges continue to exist in Tunisia and they can tell you and give you some examples nowadays. At the middle level the positive point also is that we have already trying to draft law for the audiovisual body. They respond all the time to criticism they try to update their texts and finally we have a very important and interesting draft in 2020, however, as I told you, now the parliament is locked, no parliament for instance. And this is also a maybe a positive point after 25 of July 20 and 21 hika was able to close and to suspend some media televisions which are in irregular situation. I told you about this my TV, this my TV, the owner of this my TV is number two in the parliament he is very important and very. powerful man in the parliament so all the time he didn't. He didn't allow the hika this commission to do or to do its decisions to apply its decisions and once the parliament does not exist for instance so we have some tomorrow we do we are not really in a very good position. On political side, however, maybe it is ongoing and the president of the Republic tries to give positive outputs and try to give answers on how things will move in the future and maybe we will have to elect a new parliament. Meanwhile, as I told you this hika this is the president of hika so the authority our commission in Tunisia, they are able, at least to do their decision to apply that they are decisions. What are the new challenges because of time I just focused on some very tiny challenges number one is the question of independence, this is the most important requirement under the international standards when we are dealing with liberty of expression of media, so how such commissions can be independent, how they can push the interference of politics, how they can be independent when I told you, it's also about mature maturity, and it is also about resources financial resources for our commission they do not have enough resources they are not able to do a lot. And that's why they are doing some positive points but not enough because of this question of the question of means tools they do not have enough money and not enough people to react and to control mass media. Also the interference with politics with ministers with the president, etc. Again, I just need to tell you that in Tunisia we have this quarantine people are free enough they can express themselves they can criticize even the president of the Republic nowadays and this is new we didn't have that before 2011 however, we have to pay attention to the excess sometimes it is too much in Tunisia. Now, this is a little bit about the draft I told you about in 2020 and they need that this commission should be independent authority. They put a light on its neutrality and to have independent and neutral members also this is very important to focus on again and again. The execution of their duties they do not have to be to have any interference from the political organizations. This is the second challenge, I choose the question of electronic media landscape. And the question of the online Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, all this new digital social media in which people nowadays Tunisians and others for a people can express themselves very quickly. But again, they are very dangerous that because you can, as it is in the title of our workshop you can have misinformation fake news you can instrumentalize the realities you can put fake images you can also criticize the head of the state and put very hate speech that can give very negative impression of our country for the foreign countries and sometimes tourists will not come to our country our country is based on tourists. When you have this turmoil when you have this hate speech when you have pictures who are fake news etc this is particularly not good for the image of our country so is the commission nowadays. It is capable able to control all these electronic medias and all the online reviews online broadcast the ones on YouTube etc and there are many, many of them are nowadays available I think it is very important for the commission to maybe to to have some issues to to have some solutions to control these new challenges the digital new challenges. So, this is a little bit pictures of very influential people in mass media and mass media can make opinion and public opinion can make decisions so it's very important also to make the balance between reality between the freedom of expression. I have to conclude now to tell you that our commission has done a lot. We are in transitional period we are having to understand how to respect human rights and state of law it's also about mentalities. We need to to believe in our says to believe in our constitutional commissions and bodies, we need to give them more important financial and human resources so that they can go further to reinforce the hard work so far. That's all done. And we have a lot of ideas about the reform these are some ideas as some recommendations to reform the public audio visual media to settle status of media organizations that broadcast outside the legal sphere. As a result of the unit. Yeah, I have to finish. I have we have to establish a campaign program to ensure fair and equitable coverage of elections. This is a very important point concerning elections. We need to adapt the legislation we do not adapt yet the legislations to meet them with the provisions with the new constitution, and above all we need. We need the law that will be definitely the one who control and give regulation on the commission and give solutions thank you so much for your attention maybe in the discussion we can do more to comment these recommendations. Thank you very much. Now we are we're going to have to put a lot of pressure on Boris to try and save us some time. But thank you very much a professor for for that detailed conversation. And I'm sure there will be some questions, then we'll come back to that Boris you have the floor tell us about about Armenia. Hello everyone. This year Armenia celebrated 30th anniversary of its independence. And we have a tradition to adopt changes in the Constitution every 10 years. In 2015, we had the third edition of the Constitution, and although it was named amendments to the Constitution but the changes were huge. And it's enough to say that after these changes Armenia was transformed from semi presidential to parliamentary republic. And of course this change affected also the regulation of the commission on TV and radio, which is constitutional body here. Since we are again in the process of amending the Constitution and by the decision of the government a special commission is formed. And this time we will have another amendments even sooner than in 10 years. And since we are in the in this process, I want to first of all focus on those challenges that we still see in the Constitution. One is probably abstract. It is about very declarative statement in the Constitution than the national regulator commission on TV and radio has a mission of protecting freedom of media, which in a certain extent, contradicts with the real function of the commission since the commission is providing licenses, organizing competition, following that the broadcasters are not violating the laws and management if this happens. And if it comes to the protection of certain rights then I would say that the mission of the commission is rather protecting of rights of the public, or in other words, rights of the consumers, rather than the rights of the media. Another problem is a more essential and it is about the formation of the national regulator and ensuring that it is sufficiently independent. According to our Constitution, the national regulator consists of seven members, and all of them are appointed by the National Assembly, the parliament. And given that the nomination and voting is taking place first in the profile commission or standing commission or committee of the of the parliament that then goes to the plenary, and given that we have a very strong parliamentary majority now, it is clear that the next nominations and the next voting that will take place in December for three vacancies in the commission will for sure be politically motivated and parliamentary majority will have a chance to nominate and appoint those people who are loyal. And unfortunately, this is a tradition in Armenia. In all previous years, the decision of the commission of the of the government when appointing the members of the commission and decision of the commission during the competitions for licensing were politically motivated. It brought to a very strange situation in the in 2018 when we had velvet revolution and change of the government when a majority of TV companies were belonging to the previous authorities. There was no opposition to the government, and this strong political fight in the information sphere brought to huge flows of disinformation fake news, and other propaganda content. We can say that we have informed in we still have information war in our broadcasting sphere. And of course the constitution has to have some direction for the changes in the legislation. The main legislation that regulates the operation of broadcast broadcast media in Armenia is the law on audio visual media, and despite the ambitious name that was chosen during the discussion on the law last year. The law still regulates all the traditional broadcast media. Those who have terrestrial broadcasting and those who are in the cable packages. The terrestrial broadcasting, we still have a problem with that law since it's, it does not provide for sufficient conditions for appearance of alternative or private multiplex operator. Continuously in Armenia the monopoly for the terrestrial broadcasting belongs to the public multiplex operator or state owned multiplex multiplex operators, and there is almost no chance for any other given the regulations in the law. There is no chance for any other to appear and provide broader possibility for potential broadcasters while terrestrial broadcasting is still very important in the country for the influence for the influencing the public opinion. I think this is true for the remote areas in the Armenia where our citizens mostly view television and create their perception of the social political situation through the content that they are that they are receiving. The time last year when the law on audio visual media was adopted there was one positive step which could be further developed. I'm saying further developed because it is still in a very experimental stage. And this is the attempt to combine a state regulation with the self regulation. The way it is being done is that all the TV companies or radio companies that are applying for licensing and or for authorization, we have licensing for those who want to be included in the public multiplex. Authorization is for those it is without competition it is it is open and very simple procedure. It is for being included included in the cable packages. So, any of those companies who want to be authorized or be licensed need to join certain self regulation system, which means that they either have to join some voluntarily merged self regulation in media self regulation initiatives or have their own ombudsman and also have a code of ethics and procedures for enforcement of this code of ethics. This means that the national regulator can take measures regarding the content of broadcast product broadcasted product, only if there is major and direct violation of laws, such as propaganda of races and discriminations discrimination and things like that. But when it comes to let's say mixed legal ethical issues, before taking any measures, the national regulator needs to have a conclusion of the self regulation institution. And this according to our opinion has to be developed as interesting experiment, because as the practice in Armenia approved only through quality content and through ethical journalism and through self regulation, it is possible to effectively fight with this information because any let's say administrative methods are not that effective or or take to the situation when there is a pressure on freedom of expression. That's probably what I wanted to stress on, and given that you wanted to restrict my freedom of speech. I stop here. Thank you. Thank you very much Boris I was actually very very useful, especially the last point you made. I think you still have that confidence that self regulation can do the job, you know, self self regulation was designed in the context of traditional media, but you believe that even under the current context that that could be valuable. And of course you are also speaking as a journalist yourself, which which which is which is an important perspective to think about. But thank you very much I was I was I was very very useful. And we still have luckily we still have some time and Christina you've, you've, you've read some questions already in the in the chat, and I saw that professor has has responded. But I'll open it up if anybody has any questions to any of our panelists, please bring it on. Otherwise I can, I can ask. There maybe if she wants to add on to add on what she she wrote on the chat questions are on. Anybody interested anybody with any questions. Go ahead, go ahead Christina. Thank you. I'm always curious about, you know if you would step back and look at these institutions. How would you change them. People like Adam already know I'm a bit of a skeptic about constitutional commissions and so on, because it feels to me they so often captured. And I see the Terence question in the chat is sort of a long similar lines. He there suggests that you try and have a balance but like the Germans do for their constitutional court in appointments to these commissions having opposition and majority, sort of contributing. I would worry about that as I was South Africa and I come from a one party dominant system. So that wouldn't help us. I thought was it you quasi who talked about, or perhaps had you the appointments which come from different sectors. We're bundling two different issues together. Can one ever escape capture. I mean capture whether by parallel institutions as we've heard or just by capture of the membership. Firstly, and secondly, you know how would you answer Terence question. What do you think is the strongest appointment mechanism. Thank you very much Christian I think maybe Boris can correct me in Armenia. There is actually a requirement that candidates must receive 60% support three field support. I think it may be an interesting area that you may you may wish to speak about. And indeed it is a broader challenge. How do you ensure, especially in countries where there are dominant parties how do you ensure that these commissions will actually not legitimize whatever the government does and actually do their job of ensuring balance and addressing challenge of misinformation but this is a question I guess for all the panelists. So if, if any of you would like to address that. Please go ahead. This is like, do you think from your experience in Armenia has the higher or the super majority requirement has it helped in terms of ensuring a better independence. So raised hands that is why I was reluctant to start myself but anyway, I don't think that in our case it works because, in fact, the parliamentary majority has much more votes done three fees. So, through our experience during last years, when it comes to the election of members of similar regulatory bodies like Supreme Judicial Council or any other. And the leading political party managed to pass those candidates that they they they were interested in. And again, I'm sure that in December, December elections of three new members of the commission. They will do the same, especially that the political situation in an army is very tense. And the government is very much interested to control communication communication sphere as much as it is possible to protect their their their power. So, and if we come back to the situation which we had them in May, this year, when we had the last competitions for the licensing. And there was, I would say, even a scandal in the commission on TV and radio, when five members were voting very much differently to the two others. Their scores for the applicant were so much different that it raised serious professional challenges, whether they were objective or just following this or that political interests. I think, unfortunately, that after the we will have new composition of of the of the commission, we will have continuation of that practice. In any situation when the pro government pro government broadcasters would have specific interest this interest will be protective and contrary to that, let's say, not controlled by the government channels will suffer. Thank you. Thank you very much. Interesting. So basically, I think we have to think about different ways and perhaps as Tarun suggests and Christina also notes, trying to kind of have direct role of opposition forces, regardless of the size of a majority that a party has maybe maybe an idea. We have three hands. But before I come to you, Professor Roblowski, I'm going to ask a playbani and then Kimana and then you never in that order. Please go ahead. Sorry, I come out of darkness. My name is Elizabeth. Elizabeth. Hi Elizabeth. Hi, I work at Free Press Unlimited. I'm a for it's a Dutch NGO and deals with the media development. I'm a former, I mean, I've always feel a journalist but I have to say a former journalist the last 10 years I've not worked as a journalist but with journalists. So I had a question. I have worked to myself in former Soviet Union in different countries and so I have experienced what what it means let's say the transition from a system into another system and now I'm involved in conflict zones in areas where actually they either built on scratch because they don't have any examples and tradition in that or because it has been destroyed somehow. So for a moment, if I may, with this knowledgeable crowd here, I tried to get out of the inside so the mechanism and the membership appointment and all these things and looking at outside I mean, how far. There are examples of, have you done any efforts in changing that mentality that had your, I think, has mentioned I mean it's also a question of mentality in believing in understanding that freedom is not only, you know, right is also responsibility, to regulate and how to protect the media and at the same time, maintain it as independent as possible. So efforts in taking also the public the audience right the access to information aspect in how the public can protect also the institutions and not only who holds power and only the the parliaments and so on. So how inclusive the systems need to be are and are giving, let's say results in empowering and raising awareness made maybe media literacy. It's also a form of protecting and sustain them. So I would like to hear from, I don't have an exact person to ask to but I guess Hager has maybe some experience and, and definitely. Well, I'm more known with the information which you needed for Africa so but please come, come, if you can with examples I would appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's essentially about the mandate. Do they have a promotional preventive mandate, rather than just monitoring and and punishing and and all of that. Yeah, but also what you do around advocate for it, how you communicate about this commission, how, how do people understand and know that exists this this commission because I know that made people very active inside and they do a lot of work, but how much is known outside also to protect the institutions and this mechanism. Thank you. Kimana and then we'll go to the panelists for a round of calls. Thank you. Thanks. I have two questions. The first one is actually very much related to it. Miss. I wondered how public, how publicly visible these commissions are. And also since I have an interest also in understanding how these commissions are working towards dealing with with online misinformation whether there's a pressure from the public also to expand the mandate of these of these commissions and any substantive way that would actually help them deal with with with these phenomena. My second question is, is more to Christina but I'm also really interested in hearing Professor prempers thoughts. And it is about the fact that what Christina said about commissions, very often being captured. But we've also heard from Professor prempers that actually the authorities in Ghana created this national communication communications authority right. Which would be basically maybe a regulatory body which is clearly controlled by the government as it was created by the government right. And I was wondering, Christina or Professor, but what, what, what do you think about what kind of institution would be in a better position on the one hand not to be captured. And also to have a to have a role and actually dealing with protecting freedom of expression but also dealing with with this with this information and these sorts of phenomena if it's not an independent sort of independent commission. Also other institutions can be captured. There are institutions that are created by the government. So what's the alternative. Thanks. Thank you very much. I think we've noted that and what I would do is maybe for for ease will go to to quasi and then, and then go in the direction and you can answer whichever question you wish to, and we'll finalize after that. I know that you have, we have a class if you must leave, you will be, you know, we excuse you already we're grateful, but of course we'd be glad to have you. Thanks, I can. Perfect, perfect. Professor printer, go ahead please. So, on the appointments or the composition of the Ghana Commission. I think when you look at the other constitutional commissions the independent commissions we have an electoral commission. We have a national civic education commission on civic education. We have the independent. I mean the Supreme Audit Institute in the auditor general's office. And we have a commission for human rights and administrative justice. When you look at the mode of appointment. The media commission is the only one, actually, with this structure with this with this composition, all the other ones. The commissioners are appointed by the president vacancies on the commission are filled almost single handedly by the president. There is a consultation with a council of state that is an advisory body to the president and that's it. The national media commission that you have the president and parliament the political half of the state, having a only one third of the membership allocated to them, and the rest of them are to be appointed by specifically designated civil society like kinds of institutions like the Ghana in the bar association, the journalist association association of media owners. Interestingly, and this is a bit controversial depending on what issue there is the, the, the two religious bodies are actually named as a one for Christian one for Muslim, those are the only ones named on the membership, but it's at least gives them a structure that is independent of the government and I think in practice, I think Christina is right that even with the structure. Government capture or state capture is still possible. You can you just only have to go to the various nominating bodies and then do your politics there and you can you can still get the numbers but at least it's not as easy to do as you would get with the representation where the government said no hundred points. So I think in the Ghana case the structure itself is not problematic. I think what has happened is that the framers of the Constitution certainly did not anticipate the the technological revolution that would come just on the heels of the adoption of the constitution and also even if they did I mean they left so there's a catch all phrase in the, in the list of the functions of the Commission varies in the Constitution there is this last provision that says, and they may perform such other functions as maybe prescribed by law by statutes and so nothing in this Constitution precludes our media commission from being assigned the task that have been assigned the National Communications Authority, except that nothing compels a government to do so so the first government comes to power and takes advantage of this gap and decides to create a strategy body that is then given some other functions and the problem substantially more power. The moment you move away from the state owned broadcast model to the new regime in which we are with private media as well as internet. Then the media commissions kind of role becomes a bit diminished, and that's what has happened that it's been overtaken by events, and the NC has become the substantially more powerful body, and the media commission has become quite subdued. But still, I mean, between the two institutions they continue to fight for theft, but to all in terms of purpose in the NCA is the bigger is the bigger player picture and, and I don't see that changing anytime soon because of the nature of the politics of the economy around it. It's not likely to change but I think, you know, if I had other institutions, the electoral commission and other bodies were similarly composed. I think people would have a lot more trust in their independence. So, in terms of the composition, I don't have a problem with it. It's mostly the mandate that I think, given the technology appears to have considerably diminished. Thank you very much. In interesting point, I think, and Christina is actually writing. So, you know, there's appointment mechanisms, there is funding, and there is now, from what we heard from Ghana and Poland, essentially establishing parallel institutions to undermine constitutional bodies and are there any solutions. Well, that's, that's a difficult one, but, but at least we have gotten to the stage where we have identified some of some of the challenge. Professor Muslow, do you want to go ahead? If you have, if you have any points to make in relation to any of the questions? Professor, I think you're, yes. Oh, yes, sorry. So, actually, I would like to answer that question posed by Christina regarding the commissions being captured. Yes, indeed. But the constitutional guarantees are strong than the political authorities may find different venues, like the one which was used in Poland, to exempt a part of the responsibilities from the commission, violating still the constitution, but this is when the members of the media commission have constitutionally granted term, the exemption of some of some tasks is unfortunately a method to politically control some parts of the media, of the media market. And, of course, then there is a constitutional court, which is either unable to enforce its judgments, or is politically controlled, which of course puts a question of who is the ultimate guardian of the of the constitution, but I think it's a, is a question for a separate seminar. So I would just like to, to, to, yes, to answer and say this is a very important point. And I don't think we found effective counter measures yet. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. I think but at least we have identified an issue and hopefully the next process will will engage in that had your Yeah, very quickly. Thank you so much. I like the very nice questions of Elizabeth and Kimana and also the ones wrote by Christina and I will try to respond with a synthetic point of view as our country Tunisia is in Africa and it is an Arabic Arabic country and such human rights questions are very sensitive. So we made really a lot of how to say changed mentality so that we can have this plus value these positive points nowadays and it was because of the revolution of 2011. I told you before we do not are able, even to express ourselves with freedom. So number one, maybe the questions are about the question of independence and the question of visibility of such commissions. So number one, I think that everything depends on the political will. If you have the political will in the country, everything will move very quickly. If you do not have, you will have a lot of obstacles challenges to these commissions and as if it is a dream. democracy but it is not really a democracy so I think there is very important point which is the political will to make some change and to allow these commissions to do their control and regulation Monday. This is the role of civil society. In Tunisia, the civil society very strong. It is very strong. They have the Nobel Prize in 2015. The associations defending human rights are everywhere. The weight of the street. When you are upset with something with a solution with the decision whatever people are in the streets to express themselves and it works. It is very important youth nowadays in Africa in all Africa. We have also to negotiate we have to listen to our people to African people to Tunisian people when they are not okay with your point of view we have to adhere to this tolerance and this is very important. Number three, the role of experts. We need also to have recommendations we have. We need also to know about the the positive point of view of these experts that can already give us an idea about the best practices on the basis of comparative experiences and to draft the laws so that we can defend and control such commissions. And after that I have to move to question of visibility and give you an idea about our commission HICA has very nice website and you can hear it's very easy for people they can just go into this right color. And they have it is sorry anyway, they can have here a formula and in this formula it's very quick so every people everyone every person have a mobile, even the modest people, and they can quickly if they observe something which is not good on their television or they listen to something which is opposite to the moral or to the public order or they discover some misinformation or some instrumentation they just have to fill in this very easy formula. Also, our commission do a lot of advertisement they are very visible. They are very famous we know about it. Everybody knows about it, even the youth. And they put just some very, very light spots so that they can give an idea to people on their rules on their mandates with cartoons something like that it's very easy to people to know about it and to know also how people how persons. This is a democracy, this is how you will involve people in decisions in controlling mass media in controlling the value, the values that we have on our TVs and radios I'm sorry to tell you that but here in Tunisia. 10 years after we have the extremism in everything we are in extreme positions, and we need to wake up as I told from the beginning, liberties and freedom does not mean extremism and non tolerance and you go to the excess. You need to regulate you need to have some balance this is very important and our high car for instance, this is a very good example and you can just listen to the website and you can see all the huge efforts they are doing with no human resource with no financial resource that gives you an idea that the volunteers there that we need some change and we build some change and maybe. Again, they have only eight years old, but I think that this is the beginning and we need just to put the pieces of this democracy and I think one day, it will be better and we can improve the work. But if you do not have the political will and the change in the top the mentalities you cannot have access to this positive results, this is very important we've done that in Tunisia. But if I go to Egypt to Morocco to our neighbors, I can tell you that they do not have at all the same configuration and they have a lot of pressure on their media and they do not have any. There is no commission that regulate and control the freedom of speech so at least we are a unique example, a good example in the Arabic countries. And we need to encourage enough these commissioners and to give them enough resources so that they can do a better work thank you so much. Thank you very much Boris you have the last word again. First of all, I would like to respond to the question about an existence of request for strengthening the role of the national regulators. I think it exists, and this is not good news sometimes, because this is rather request for censorship, rather the request for, let's say, effective regulation. And secondly, this domination of fake news in the information sphere. This raises this raises anxious anxiety among them among the population and people want to punish those who they dislike as transmitters of information. And when they know, and in Armenia, most of the people know that there is a national regulator and they want that this national regulator is very strict towards the media towards the journalists, and other who disseminate information. And I see, I see a real solution here in development of such institutions are media literacy and self regulation that would balance this request for censorship, and the request for quality information. Without capturing the national regulator, I think this capture has two levels. One level is when the members of such kind of national regulators are appointed or elected. And here we try to try it in Armenia different methods to exclude politically motivated decisions here like suggesting public hearings about the candidacies. This is very important because in our law it is stipulated that the members of the national regulator should be people who are well known as experts in the area of broadcasting journalism, law, culture, education. However, there is no clear criteria. There are no clear criteria. What does it mean. And for this I think kind of public hearings with which could ensure people know and the society that those people are really the best representatives among the candidates who could work independently and professionally in the national regulator. Another option was the provision in our previous law on TV and radio, which stipulated that for any applicants for the position in the national regulator, they needed recommendations from civil society organizations. And again, it was some kind of ambiguity which civil society organizations could give such recommendations because we have about 5000 of CSOs in a small country. So I think certain criteria should exist. What kind of NGOs and with how it could be proved that they are established and independent entities could give these recommendations otherwise this mechanism is not working. And finally, finally, I think there should be a certain clarity in how diversity in the membership should be achieved, both political and professional diversity. And this is also something that has to be probably discussed, not in during the reform of the constitution, but during the discussions in the amendments to the law which will happen soon because there is a clear request that all audio visual media is regulated and not just the traditional one. And the second level of capture is much more complicated case, because even those people who seem to be elected in a fair process procedure feel more comfortable if appearing in the national regulator on other similar bodies. If they are loyal to the government. They are many mechanism to ensure such kind of loyalty, unfortunately, in a transitional democracies. And this is much more complicated issue because this, this challenge could be met adequately with development of culture. And this is I think wrong way for countries like my country and maybe some others which are represented in this panel. Thank you very much Boris I think if I can summarize I will never do it justice. It's a combination of thinking cleverly to design the institutions properly, but also it's very important that there is a context within which these institutions will be operating. And however good the designs are if those circumstances do not exist. They could be problematic and I think Christina will probably be shaking her head because she says these institutions are needed in places where they cannot function properly. And they, they, you know, and that is at the dilemma how can you have institutions that need to be independent in places where independence is unlikely to be to be found that's that's a dilemma. But I want to thank you very much. I think we've learned a lot about the case studies and there's a lot of stuff that we need to think about. I really appreciate the time and we've kept you for her very, very long already. Kimana, do you want to officially close it. I officially close it by saying thank you so very much to the panelists and also to the, to the participants for so interesting questions to Adam for for his wonderful moderation and to Sharon Hickey for her behind the scenes. Thank you so much for your kind assistance without which this would not be possible. Hopefully you enjoyed the conversation as much as I did and hopefully see you very soon again.