LGBTI persons have been prevented from conducting their activities on the premise of protecting public morals and shielding minors from harm.193 137. Participating States should review their legislative frameworks to ensure their full compliance with international standards and OSCE commitments on freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information. More specifically, they should ensure that any limitations on these rights comply strictly with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. In doing so, they should pay particular attention to eliminating vague provisions and loopholes that affect predictability in the application of the law and are thus incompatible with the principle of legality. Similarly, provisions that allow restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression on the basis of grounds that are not recognized under international law and that impose disproportionate limitations should be promptly amended or repealed. 138. The UN Human Rights Council has called on states “to ensure that legislation designed to guarantee public safety and public order contains clearly defined provisions consistent with international human rights law, including the principle of non-discrimination, and that such legislation is not used to impede or restrict the exercise of any human right, including freedom of expression”.194 Furthermore, laws that impose restrictions for the purpose of protecting public morals, including on the right to freedom of expression, must not violate the non-discrimination 193  See, for example, Report of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe following his visit to Azerbaijan from 22 to 24 May 2013, CommDH(2013)14, 6 August 2013. In his opinion on legislative amendments in the Russian Federation, the Commissioner found that the language used in the Law on Treason is excessively vague and broad, and could therefore lend itself to selective interpretation and undue restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression (see “Opinion of the Commissioner for Human Rights on the legislation of the Russian Federation on non-commercial organisations in light of Council of Europe standards”, CommDH(2013)15, 15 July 2013, para. 24). Furthermore, the Commissioner found that “[t]he notion of ‘political activity’ as defined in the Law on Foreign Agents, the use of the term ‘foreign agent’ and the possibility of applying criminal charges for ‘malevolent’ non-compliance with the Law interfere with the free exercise of the rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression as defined in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights” (para. 82). In its 2009 Concluding Observations on the Russian Federation, the Human Rights Committee called on the state party to “revise the Federal Law on Combating Extremist Activity with a view to making the definition of “extremist activity” more precise so as to exclude any possibility of arbitrary application.” See UN Doc. CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, 24 November 2009, para. 24. In its 2012 Concluding Observations on Turkey, the Human Rights Committee expressed concern at “the vagueness of the definition of a terrorist act” and “the high number of cases in which human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and even children are charged under the Anti-Terrorism Law for the free expression of their opinions and ideas, in particular in the context of non-violent discussions of the Kurdish issue”; see UN Doc. CCPR/C/TUR/CO/1, 13 November 2012, para. 16. In 2011, the then Council of Europe Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg published a comprehensive report on freedom of expression and media freedom in Turkey, in which he called on the authorities to overhaul and amend a number of provisions, including in the criminal code and anti-terrorism legislation, in order to prevent their disproportionate use to limit freedom of expression (see “Report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, following his visit to Turkey, from 27 to 29 April 2011”, CommDH(2011)25, 12 July 2011). Concerning laws to protect public morals and minors, the Human Rights Committee, for example, raised concern in its Concluding Observations on Lithuania that “certain legal instruments such as the Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information (art. 7) may be applied in a manner unduly restrictive of the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Covenant and may have the effect of justifying discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals.” See CCPR/C/LTU/ CO/3, 31 August 2012, para. 8. 194  A/HRC/RES/22/6, para. 4. Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 69