53. The Applicant also cited the Cases of Lapsevitch vs. Belarus UN Human Rights Committee Comm. No.780/1997 (2000) and Media Rights Agenda & Others vs. Nigeria, ACPHR Comms 105/93,128/94,130/94 and 152/96 (1998) where it was held that restrictions that give governments the power to prohibit publication of any newspaper or magazine cannot be sustained. e) That prior censorship of any films directed in Burundi under Article 46 of the Press Law cannot be in conformity with Burundi’s obligations under Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. 54. According to the Applicant, the requirement of prior authorization from the National Communications Council before any film can be directed on Burundi’s territory amounts to the creation of an illegimate prior censorship regime. In support of their proposition, reliance was placed on Bantam Books Inc. vs. Sullivan 372 U.S 58 (1963) in the U.S Supreme Court and Observer and Guardian vs. U.K Appl. No.13484/88 (1991) at the European Court on Human Rights (ECHR). In Bantam Books, the Court held that there is a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality with respect to prior restraints of expression while the ECHR stated that prior restraints required the most careful scrutiny. f) That the rights of reply and correction regime under Articles 48-54 of the Press Law being vaguely worded, unduly impedes the media’s right to freedom of expression thus, violating Article 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. That by allowing corrections by public authorities in such circumstances, the Press Law legitimates continuous interference with the work of the media. 55. In addition to the above submission, the Case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. vs. Tornillo 418 US 241(1994) was cited where the US Supreme Court ruled that a mandatory right of reply to the print media Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 18