OVERALL SCORE FOR SECTOR 2: Sector 3: 3.1 3.4 Broadcasting regulation is transparent and independent, the state broadcaster is transformed into a truly public broadcaster. Broadcasting is regulated by an independent body adequately protected against interference, particularly of a political and economic nature. ANALYSIS: There is no regulation for the media in Cape Verde. It suffices to say that the regulatory body, the Media Council (CCS), has been inoperative for more than two years, after the expiry of its original mandate. Participants were unanimous to the fact that the full weight of this body has not been felt in the media. For the moment there is no independent body to regulate broadcasting, although there are international and regional agreements that recommend the establishment of such a body. There is a proposal that has been put forward by media professionals for the establishment of a Higher Media Authority, which would be an independent body, with a broad based social representation. This would help to avoid the excessive political connotation of the CCS. However, it is worth noting that the establishment of such an Authority would require a constitutional amendment. SCORES: Individual scores: 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1 Average score: 1.2 3.2 The appointments procedure for members of the regulatory body is open and transparent and involves civil society. ANALYSIS: Cape Verde has a body that is eminently political. It is dominated by politicians. Of its nine members, three are appointed by parliament, another three (including its chair) by the government, and the remaining three are supposedly there to represent the public, even though the law says that they have to be coopted by the other six. Even the fact that the chair is a judge does not remove the political connotation of this body, which among its members does not have even a single representative of the media fraternity. For the past two years the two political parties with parliamentary representation have been trying to get some consensus as to who should be appointed to the body. Just the fact that the law says that the three representatives of civil society (public opinion) are co-opted by the other six, who are designated by political parties and government is enough for the independence of this body to be compromised. 35