A leaflet distributed by a human rights organisation stated: 'In Country X, the government has restricted internet access during election periods three time...

(a) Two pieces of evidence supporting the claim that freedom of expression is under threat [2]

Any two of the following, each worth [1]:

• The government has restricted internet access during election periods three times in the past five years.
• Independent journalists have been detained.
• Two newspapers critical of the ruling party have been shut down.
• International observers reported irregularities at 15% of polling stations.

Each piece of evidence shows a pattern of government action that limits the ability of citizens, journalists, and media organisations to express views or access information freely.

(b) Why the human rights organisation's perspective might differ from the government's [3]

The human rights organisation's core mission is to identify, document, and publicise abuses of rights, so it naturally focuses on negative developments and patterns of suppression [1]. The government, by contrast, has an interest in maintaining its legitimacy and international reputation. It may argue that internet restrictions were necessary for national security during sensitive election periods, or that journalists were detained for violating laws rather than for political reasons [1]. Each side interprets the same events through the lens of its own priorities, institutional role, and goals [1].

(c) One reason why international observers' reports might be more credible [3]

International observers are typically independent of both the government and domestic advocacy groups, meaning they have no direct political stake in the outcome of the election or the broader power struggle [1]. They apply standardised criteria developed through extensive experience monitoring elections in many countries, providing a consistent analytical framework rather than an ad hoc assessment [1]. Their findings carry additional credibility because they represent an outside perspective with less personal, financial, or political interest in how the situation is portrayed than either the government or domestic organisations [1].

(d) Two actions the international community could take, each with a potential difficulty [4]

Any two of the following, each worth [2] (action + difficulty):

1. Impose diplomatic sanctions or travel bans on officials responsible for the restrictions [1]. Difficulty: sanctions can harm ordinary citizens through economic knock-on effects, and may provoke a defensive nationalist response from the government that actually strengthens its domestic support [1].
2. Issue public statements condemning the restrictions through international bodies such as the UN [1]. Difficulty: statements alone may have little practical impact if the government is determined to maintain control, and repeated condemnations without enforcement can erode the credibility of the international body itself [1].
3. Provide funding and support to independent media within the country to strengthen journalistic capacity [1]. Difficulty: the government could block, criminalise, or stigmatise the receipt of foreign funding, portraying independent journalists as foreign agents [1].
4. Bring the matter before an international court or regional body for formal adjudication [1]. Difficulty: enforcement of rulings depends on the willingness of member states to act, and many international legal mechanisms lack effective enforcement powers [1].