20 MORICE v. FRANCE JUDGMENT work on this question and in the light of the Court’s case law, a draft recommendation to member states laying down detailed rules on defamation with a view to eradicating abusive recourse to criminal proceedings. ...” 62. The response of the Committee of Ministers, adopted at the 1,029th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (11 June 2008), reads as follows. “1. The Committee of Ministers has studied Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1814 (2007) entitled ‘Towards decriminalisation of defamation’ with great attention. It has communicated the recommendation to the governments of member states as well as to the Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC), the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, for information and possible comments. The comments received are contained in the appendix. 2. By decision of 24 November 2004, the Committee of Ministers instructed the Steering Committee on Mass Media (CDMM), which subsequently became the Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC), inter alia, to look into ‘the alignment of laws on defamation with the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights, including the issue of decriminalisation of defamation’. It took note of the reply received in September 2006 and of the fact that the CDMC considered it desirable that member states should take a proactive approach in respect of defamation by examining, even in the absence of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning them directly, domestic legislation against the standards developed by the Court and, where appropriate, aligning criminal, administrative and civil legislation with those standards. In the abovementioned document, the CDMC also considered that steps should be taken to ensure that the application in practice of laws on defamation fully complies with those standards. 3. The Committee of Ministers endorses this view, as well as the Parliamentary Assembly’s call on member states to take such measures, with a view to removing all risk of abuse or unjustified prosecutions. 4. Bearing in mind the role of the European Court of Human Rights in developing general principles on defamation through its case law and its power to adjudicate claims of violations of Article 10 in specific cases, the Committee of Ministers does not consider it advisable at this point in time to develop separate detailed rules on defamation for member states. 5. Finally, the Committee of Ministers considers that there is no need at present to revise its Recommendation No. R (97) 20 on hate speech or to prepare guidelines on this subject. More efforts could instead be made by member states to give the recommendation more visibility and to make better use of it.” F. Judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 4 June 2008 in the case of Djibouti v. France 63. In its judgment of 4 June 2008 in the case concerning Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), the ICJ noted that it was not its task to determine the facts and establish