"The cases from B&H and Kosovo show that three straightforward regulatory practices can make a significant impact in a relatively short time. What is needed is an independent and legitimate regulator, a set of laws and guidelines against incendiary media, and an accompanying set of laws in protection of free speech. Obviously, this three-pronged framework does not constitute an entire regulatory regime for media. It cannot guarantee peace, but it can enable individuals at all levels of society to make better decisions about whether or not to support or participate in a conflict. The scope of regulatory practice in conflict must be seen as a long term process. On one hand, media regulation exists to prevent the escalation of conflict. On the other hand, it exists to maintain a media environment conducive to promotion of a functioning democratic society. Media democratization is a long-lasting process of legal reform and a purview of legal experts, and it usually evolves with the rest of the democratic processes. It requires legal, technical and even engineering expertise. The end goal of the process is to develop a modern regulatory framework for the media which supports and protects general media freedoms. In the short term, the initial phase of the media democratization process must be concerned with the prevention of conflict escalation and protection of media and their rights and freedoms." (Conclusion)