Alleged violation of Article 9 of the Charter (The right to Freedom of Expression and Access to Information) 147. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 9 of the Charter, the Respondent State argues that the Ethiopian Constitution guarantees the right to hold opinions and freedom of expression, including seeking, receiving, and sharing information and ideas through various mediums. They assert that these rights can only be limited by laws guided by the principle that freedom of expression and information should not be restricted based on content or impact of the expressed viewpoint. However, legal limitations may be imposed to protect youth and individuals' reputations. 148. The Respondent State avers that Proclamation No. 590/2008, the law Governing Mass Media and Access to Information at the time of the allegation, has been repealed by Proclamation No. 1238/2021, which was adopted with the purview of upholding and strengthening previous achievements in freedom of expression while addressing barriers to independent media operations and the free flow of information. 149. The Respondent State contends that private publications were not shut down before the election in 2015, as over 107 private and public media organizations reported on the electoral process and international media presented throughout the pre-, during, and post-election periods. 150. Regarding the arrest of journalists and bloggers, the Respondent State maintains that it was not arbitrary or solely based on their expression or political activity. Rather, they were suspected of crimes related to their affiliation with terrorist organizations, advocating for the violent overthrow of a constitutionally elected Government, engaging in hate speech, and inciting violence against specific ethnic groups. The Respondent State adds that these individuals were brought before the court of law, as the Government has an obligation, under its own Constitution and international law, to protect citizens from terrorism, violence incitement, and hate speech. 151. The Respondent State asserts that no evidence supports the allegation of using sophisticated technologies for wiretapping and blocking blogs and websites. They argue that the Respondent State has laws that adhere to international standards, and interception and surveillance of communications are allowed under the Constitution and the Anti-Terrorism law to protect and investigate certain crimes subject to strict procedural requirements such as court warrants, confidentiality ~ 28 ~ African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region, The Gambia, Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.int/