16th article of the Civil Code contains confusing notions that are not complying with the constitution and European standards. This is the conclusion of the journalists and jurists expressed on Friday, July 14 within a public debate, soliciting to amend this article in order to adjust it to international standards. According to the jurist of the Independent Journalist Center (IJC), Olivia Partac, the notions of honor and dignity, provided in the 16th article, have a soviet feature. On the other hand, the notion of defamation was ignored by the legislators. The European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) recommends making a distinction between the information related to actions and value judgments, i.e. opinions. In this way, the existence of actions can be proved, while the truth of value judgments is not possible to be proven or denied, the quoted source states. “At the same time ECHR emphasizes the aspect of goodwill, on the base of which the journalists can defend and which must be taken into consideration”, the expert states. According to her, the legislation is directed exclusively to defend honor, dignity and professional reputation, whilst in a democratic society there is no equilibrium between this dimension and the right to freedom of speech. In order solve this situation, IJC created a group of experts who elaborated a draft law on freedom of speech, the quoted source informed. According to the 16th article of the Civil Code, persons charged with something must prove their innocence, and that is not correct, the expert considers. According to Olivia Partac, on the one hand press acts for the public interest and that is why it has to be privileged, on the other hand, it is easier for the plaintiff to prove that the information is not real. Ion Bunduchi, lecturer at the Journalism Department of the State University of Moldova considers that the deficiencies of the 16th article arise from the way we understand the role of the press in the society. He also said that the notions of honor, dignity and professional reputation do not have individual definitions, and this is the reason why the law is not working properly. Bunduchi thinks it is need to exclude the notions of honor and dignity in favor of professional reputation, explaining that it is measurable, while honor and dignity are subjective notions. “If one is dishonest, the court has nothing to defend. Honor and dignity is the personal problem of a person, and the legal mechanisms must not interfere in the moral area”, Bunduchi declared. At the debates, the judge of the Supreme Justice Court, Vera Macinschi mentioned that the number of cases on freedom of speech in Moldova is very small, fact that shows, according to her, that there no serious problems related to this chapter. Machinschi considers that any country must settle regulations regardless of the European legislation. At the same time, the representative of IJC declared itself in favor of settling the quantum of the moral damage through law and not leaving this problem to judges’ discretion. According to her, laws contain only methods of estimating moral compensation instead of exact quantum. Politicians, representatives of diplomatic missions and international bodies accredited in Chisinau, jurists of the Constitutional Court, Supreme Justice Court, Ministry of Justice, representatives of the Audiovisual Coordinating Council, civil society and journalists participated in the debates.