  Public authorities, including police and public prosecutors, should take no part in the initiation or prosecution of criminal defamation cases, regardless of the status of the party claiming to have been defamed, even if he or she is a senior public official Harsh penalties including imprisonment or excessive fines for instance should never be available as a sanction for breach of defamation laws, no matter how egregious or blatant the defamatory statement. An analysis of Samoa’s criminal defamation laws (which was reintroduced in 2017) provide that the burden of proof is on the complainant to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the elements of defamation as provided by section 117A(1) of the Crimes Act 2013 are represent. The elements include that the statement made about the complainant was false and that the person making the statement had the intention to cause harm to the complainant’s reputation. The onus on the complainant to prove all elements of the offence of criminal defamation is high. Moreover, the offence of criminal libel imposes a shorter maximum imprisonment penalty of 3 months compared to six months under the repealed enactment.55 All in all, Samoa’s current law on criminal defamation is for the most part proportionate noting the criteria that police, prosecutors or any senior public official should not take part in initiating a case for criminal defamation. Civil defamation In many countries the protection of one’s reputation is treated primarily or exclusively as a private interest.56 Consultations revealed concerns regarding individuals expressing political views which also targets politicians personally and their families rather than on matters of politics.57 This has resulted in some politicians bringing civil suits and also laying criminal charges against these individuals for defamation. The latter as highlighted above is unnecessary to provide adequate protection for reputations.58 The civil law of defamation can legitimately be used to protect reputations against false statements.59 Civil defamation allows individuals to bring a claim for damages as a result of an injury to the reputation of a person – harm made to the goodwill or character of an individual.60 The importance placed on protecting a person’s reputation over freedom of expression was explained by the court in the civil defamation case of Alesana v Samoa Observer Company Ltd.61 The court recognized 55 see Police and Paulo at para 101 Article 19, “Defining Defamation: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation”, p. 11. 57 See for example Civicus, “Defamation laws being used to silence criticism in Samoa”, (27 September 2019) https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2019/09/27/defamation-laws-being-used-silence-criticism-samoa/#. 58 Article 19, “Defining Defamation: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation”, p. 11. 59 The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, “Media and Elections”, ACE Encyclopedia, https://aceproject.org/aceen/topics/me/mea/mea01i/mobile_browsing/onePag, accessed 12 May 2021. 60 Amit Sinha, “Difference between Civil Defamation and Criminal Defamation”, Blog (15 May 2019) https://medium.com/@sinhaamit095/difference-between-civil-defamation-and-criminal-defamation-3c6451627ba6, accessed 16 May 2021. 61 Alesana v Samoa Observer Company Ltd [1998] WSSC 1; CP 042 1997 (6 July 1998) http://www.paclii.org/cgibin/sinodisp/ws/cases/WSSC/1998/1.html?stem=&synonyms=&query=tofilau%20eti%20alesana. 56 State of Human Rights Report 2021 | 20