of the Media has repeatedly called for criminal defamation laws to be abolished and replaced, where necessary, with appropriate civil defamation laws.200 140. Civil defamation laws can also be abused and instrumentalized to silence speech, for instance, by imposing disproportionately high fines on human rights defenders in defamation cases.201 In this vein, the UN Human Rights Council has called on states to ensure that “penalties for defamation are limited in order to ensure proportionality and reparation commensurate to the harm done”.202 In addition, such fines should only be imposed after an individual assessment is carried out of the seriousness of the defamatory act and the specific economic situation of the individual, the media outlet or other organization in question, in order to ensure that sanctions do not endanger their functioning or lead to bankruptcy. The threat of excessive sanctions alone can produce a climate of self-censorship and stifle freedom of expression more generally. 141. When reviewing their laws and requisite amendments to bring them in line with international human rights standards, participating States should consult effectively with all stakeholders, including civil society. They should also seek the technical advice of relevant international institutions, including the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the Venice Commission, and should fully implement their opinions. 142. Anyone detained or imprisoned for expressing her or his views or opinions, or sub- jected to other sanctions on the basis of laws that do not meet the strict requirements of international standards on freedom of opinion and expression, should be immediately released, while any other related sanctions that have been applied – such as fines or the confiscation of property – should be overturned. Furthermore, participating States should expressly recognize and reaffirm the right of human rights defenders to openly scrutinize the public policies and actions of the state. 200  “International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression, Joint Declaration by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression”, December 2002, <http://www.osce.org/fom/39838>. See also “Tenth Anniversary Joint Declaration: Ten Key Challenges to Freedom of Expression in the Next Decade”, February 2010, <http://www.osce.org/fom/41439>. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has also called on member States of the organization to review and, where necessary, amend their defamation laws with a view to removing any risk of abuse or unjustified prosecutions. It also welcomed the efforts of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in favour of decriminalizing defamation, see Resolution 1577 (2007) and Recommendation 1814 (2007), “Towards decriminalisation of defamation”, adopted on 4 October 2007. 201  For example, in its “Concluding Observations on Moldova”, the UN Human Rights Committee raised concern at “reports of the use, by politically influential interest groups and individuals, of civil defamation laws against independent journalists. It also notes with concern reports of the prosecution of independent television broadcasters”; see UN Doc. CCPR/C/MDA/CO/2, 4 November 2009, para. 21. In its “Concluding Observations on Tajikistan”, it also expressed concern that “defamation lawsuits are filed against media organizations as a means of intimidation” (while signalling appreciation at the removal of defamation articles from the Criminal Code, the Committee simultaneously expressed concern at the existence of penal provisions on libel and insult against the president and insult against government representatives), UN Doc. CCPR/C/TJK/CO/2, 22 August 2013, para. 22. 202  A/HRC/RES/22/6, para. 11(f). Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 71