direct interest or personal involvement in order to obtain it, except in cases in which a legitimate restriction is applied’.885 15. Although some other human rights bodies take a more limited approach,886 the Human Rights Committee has seen this right as entailing a right to receive journalistic information,887 media access to information on public affairs,888 and for individuals to know what personal data is stored by which public authorities or private bodies and for which purpose.889 Prisoners should also be entitled to access their medical records.890 Those accused of criminal offences should also receive information on their rights.891 However, the refusal of the State to disclose a secret police register could not constitute an interference with the applicant’s right to receive information as he had no right to that information and the State did not wish him to receive it.892 States also have the obligation to provide freedom of information legislation.893 Particular protections in the context of administration of justice 16. The judiciary are seen as playing a key role and are therefore themselves open to public scrutiny. The UN and regional special rapporteurs have therefore noted that:      special restrictions on commenting on the courts and judges are generally not justified; there should no restrictions on reporting on on-going legal proceedings unless there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the fairness of those proceedings or the right to a fair trial or presumption of innocence; any sanctions for reporting on legal proceedings should be applied only after a fair and public hearing; courts and judicial processes should be subject to the principle of maximum disclosure of information unless it is necessary to protect the right to a fair trial or presumption of innocence; judges have a right to free expression which should only be restricted where necessary to protect their independence and impartiality.894 885 Claude Reyes and Others v. Chile, 19 September 2006, Series C No. 151, para. 77. See also Human Rights Committee, Communication 633/1995, R. Gauthier v Canada, 5 May 1999. 886 E.g. the European Court sees a right of access to information in relation to court proceedings, see Kenedi v Hungary, 26 August 2009. 887 Communication 1334/2004, Mavlonov and Sa’di v Uzbekistan, CCPR/C/96/D/1877 (2009). 888 Human Rights Committee, Communication 633/95, Gauthier v Canada, 5 May 1999 889 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.16, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 142 (2003). 890 Communication 726/1996, Zheludkov v Ukraine, 29 October 2002. 891 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add/13 (2004),. 892 European Court, Leander v Sweden, 26 March 1987. 893 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.34, CCPR/C/GC/34 (2011), para 19; see also concluding observations, Azerbaijan, CCPR/C/79/Add.38 (1994). 894 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 and ACHPR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Dec 2002. 142