Chapter three: Democracy and good political governance of reporting the crime and does not specify the duties of those to whom the crime is reported, and that there is no witness protection system in place. 211. The CSAR points out that a range of bills and policies “are long overdue” and in need of enactment and adoption in order to fully protect and realise the full implementation and enjoyment of human rights in Lesotho. Bills and policies specifically mentioned in the CSAR are the following: • Child Protection and Welfare Bill 2000. • Draft National Disability Policy. • Proposed HIV and AIDS Bill. • Proposed Domestic Violence Bill. • Draft Penal Code 2002. 212. Lesotho does not have a human rights commission in place to investigate human rights abuses and to coordinate the work of similar institutions. 213. In conclusion, the CSAR points out that there is a need for compliance with ratified regional and international human rights instruments, as well as for the domestication of such provisions. In addition, little if any reporting is undertaken in respect of these instruments in accordance with international obligations. ii. Findings of the CRM 214. Although there is an unavoidable overlap between general human rights issues and more specific issues such as gender, children and young people, and the rights of vulnerable groups, the CRM has, as far as possible, disaggregated these components of Lesotho’s human rights regime in order to fit its findings into the specific objectives covered by the APRM. With reference to human rights, the CRM has noted both specific and general concerns. 215. With reference to specific concerns regarding the implementation, protection and promotion of human rights in Lesotho, the stakeholder deliberations pointed to the need for the government to address shortcomings as far as the rights to information and of association are concerned. 216. As mentioned in the CSAR, citizens, and especially the media, have rather limited access to information. This situation was confirmed during stakeholder meetings. In addition, it became clear that journalists’ right to protect their sources of information was being curtailed. One argument given in favour of the status quo was that “journalists were not responsible” and that it was therefore not possible to introduce legislation and/or measures to address these lacunae. However, freedom of the media (and of the general public) to information, as well as the right to protection of sources of information, is considered to be part and parcel of a healthy and vibrant democracy. The government might consider such legislation and measures in conjunction with the development of a code of conduct for the media. Such a self-regulating process, together with the opportunity to legally prosecute irresponsible media coverage (which is already in existence), might go some way towards developing a healthy media culture in the country and ensuring that 69