In spite of some positive actions, in 2006, journalists complained repeatedly about the limited access and discriminatory treatment, depending on how convenient their publications are for the government. This conclusion has been drawn in the annual report “Freedom of speech and information in Moldova in 2006”, worked out by the Independent Centre of Journalism. In 2006 Moldova’s legislation became available in the Internet. The Ministry of Justice launched the webpage www.justice.md, which contains almost the entire legislation of Moldova. The page is administrated by the Centre of Legal Information and includes a search engine. At the same time, the Parliament sittings’ records were also available in the internet in 2006 too. Parliament’s Standing Bureau approved new regulations for accrediting journalists, according to which accreditation cards will be issued for the entire period of the Parliament’s mandate, and not for a single year, as previously. Live transmission of the Parliament’s plenary sessions, at the public stations of the “Teleradio Moldova” Company also went on, although the communist faction insisted several times on ceasing them. Communists think they are inefficient and plead for the creation of summary programmes on radio and TV. On the other hand, journalists complained repeatedly about limited access and discriminatory treatment, depending on how convenient their publications are for the government. Thus, only some of the journalists accredited with the president’s press service, representing official and pro-presidential press institutions were invited to the briefing held by Vladimir Voronin after his meeting with Vladimir Putin of August 8, 2006. A similar situation occurred after Voronin’s participation in the summit of CIS head of states. Authors of the report conclude that during the year several pressures on journalists have been applied. The state of freedom of speech worsened dramatically in the second half of 2006, when the implementation of the Audiovisual Code started. “The utilisation of this act for suppressing criticism from the local audiovisual seems obvious”, the end of the report says.