reprimand had been imposed in the last 10 years planned to abolish that punishment by excluding of jncitelnapt . * re&uon to national. by Ukrainian courts and it was it from the new Criminal Code. f or- racial or relir&.ous for war w 217. With reference to that issue, members of the Committee wished to know what was the relatiOn6hip between the new bill on freedom of CouGcience, which had just been enacted by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and the Act on Religious A66OCfatiOnS in the Ukrainian SSR of 1 November 1976; whether all the rights of the Uniate Church had now been fully re-established, including its religious tie6 with the Holy See: whether any complaint6 had been lodged under article 134 (1) of the Criminal Code of the Ukrainian SSR; what measures had been taken to guarantee respect for pluralism in television programmes, particularly during electionsr whether it wa6 possible to set up an independent radio or television network: and whether there were provisions designed to punish the dissemination of false information. Additional information was also requested on recently drafted legislation relating to the press and to the lifting of censorship restrictions, a6 well a6 on the legal regime governing conscientious objection. 218. In hi6 reply, the representative of the State party explained that the recently adopted legislation on freedom of conscience in the USSR, which was considerably more democratic than the legislative provisions currently in force in the Ukrainian SSR, would prevail over the latter. The new law specified that the activities of the Uniate Church were lawful and fully recognised it6 rights. Virtually all the denomination6 in existence in Ukraine could be registered under it. A large number of press organ6 were functioning in the USSR without any censorship, and it had been decided that any social, governmental, scientific or other organieations, and even individuals, should have the right to engage in activities in the media. Permission to publish wa6 granted without restriction and no censorship W&6 allowed. No special permission was required for publication6 printing fewer than 1,000 copies. 219. Responding to other questions, the representative noted that there was a6 yet no real private television network in the Ukrainian SSR. During electoral campaign6 all candidate6 had an opportunity to explain their programme6 and anyone who came under criticism from the media could exercise a right of reply. During the previous six months, 16 complaints had been filed under article 134 (1) of the Criminal Code, and the official6 implicated had had to explain the adverse decisions against the complainant6 in court. Dieclosure of state or military secrets; incitation to war, hatred or racial or religious intolerance; and dissemination of pornography or interference in the private life of citizen6 were prohibited by law. Any citizen who considered that he had been offended or injured could bring a complaint before a court and obtain compensation. The law establishing criminal liability for an attack on the honour and dignity of state official6 had been repealed by the Supreme Soviet, and the new decree stated that only attack6 on the honour and dignity of the President of the Republic could lead to prosecution. -53-