Gabon
◆Binding
Binds Responsables de traitement, on the terms of the art. 4 scope: the Law applies to any collection, processing, transmission, storage and use of personal data by a natural person or by public-law or private-law legal persons, and to any processing, automated or not, of personal data contained or intended to be contained in a file. Art. 78 subjects automated processing to a declaration to the APDPVP, excepting the processing mentioned in arts. 80, 81 and 82 or in art. 111; art. 79 requires the declaration to carry an undertaking that the processing satisfies the Law's requirements, to be addressed by any means leaving a trace, and requires the controller to notify data breaches likely to seriously affect fundamental rights and freedoms to the competent supervisory authority without excessive delay. Neither profiling nor automated decision-making is listed as a category attracting prior authorisation, so Gabon imposes no ex ante gate on the processing art. 77 governs. Art. 206 and art. 207 distinguish controllers holding a récépissé or an authorisation from de facto controllers holding neither. The art. 77 bar binds the courts under its first limb and, under its second, every decision-maker whose decision produces legal effects in regard to a person, with no size or sector threshold. Impact tier: all entities.. Article 77 of Loi n° 025/2023 du 12 juillet 2023 portant modification de la loi n° 001/2011 du 25 septembre 2011 relative à la protection des données à caractère personnel is Gabon's operative automated-decision rule. Like its predecessor it is not a free-standing article: the automated-decision paragraphs are appended to the article governing data relating to offences, convictions and security measures, which reserves such processing to public and judicial authorities and legal persons managing a public service acting within their legal remit, and to auxiliaires de justice for the strict needs of the missions the law confers on them. Three unnumbered paragraphs follow. The first: no judicial decision involving an appraisal of a person's conduct may have as its foundation a computerised processing of data intended to evaluate certain aspects of their personality. The second: no other decision producing legal effects in regard to a person may be taken on the sole foundation of an automated processing of data intended to define the profile of the person concerned or to evaluate certain aspects of their personality. The third deems decisions taken in the context of the conclusion or performance of a contract, and for which the person concerned was put in a position to present their observations, and those satisfying the requests of the person concerned, not to be issued from an automated processing. As in Guinea, Madagascar and Congo, the judicial limb omits the word "seul" that the second limb carries. The second limb takes the narrow Directive 95/46/EC trigger confined to decisions producing legal effects. What sets Gabon apart from every other Francophone row on the tracker is the surrounding apparatus, which is GDPR-grade and, uniquely, AI-aware on the face of the statute. The definitions article defines Intelligence Artificielle as a logical and automated process generally resting on an algorithm which is able to carry out well-defined tasks, adding that any tool used by a machine constitutes an artificial intelligence; it separately defines raw data in the field of artificial intelligence as data having undergone no transformation since its initial observation, input data in the field of artificial intelligence as data used for machine learning or for the decision-making of the system, and the artificial neuron by reference to whether it should be activated. It also defines Profilage as a processing using an individual's personal data with a view to analysing and predicting their characteristics, and Portabilité. Art. 43, the access right, carries the full GDPR transparency package: the existence of automated decision-making, including profiling, and at least in such cases meaningful information about the underlying logic as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of that processing for the person concerned, together with a distinct right for the data subject to obtain on request knowledge of the reasoning underlying the processing of the data where the results of that processing are applied to them. Gabon is therefore the one jurisdiction in this block where the automated-decision bar sits alongside both a logic-disclosure right and a reasoning right.
Supersession: this row replaces, and does not duplicate, the automated-decision provision of Loi n° 001/2011 du 25 septembre 2011, which carried the same rule at its art. 50 in the same unusual placement, appended to the article on offence and conviction data. Loi n° 025/2023 is styled a modification of the 2011 Law but is in substance a full recast, running to 221 articles against the predecessor's shorter frame and renumbering throughout; its art. 221 provides that the present Law, which abrogates all prior contrary provisions, notably certain provisions of Loi n° 001/2011, shall be registered, published in the Journal Officiel and executed as a law of the Republic. Because the abrogation is of contrary provisions rather than of the 2011 Law as a whole, and because the recast reproduces the automated-decision rule rather than repealing it, the obligation is continuous from 2011; only the article number, the wording and the enforcement apparatus changed. The wording changes are small but real: the 2011 judicial limb read "traitement automatisé" where the 2023 text reads "traitement informatisé", and the 2011 deeming clause read that such decisions are not regarded as taken on the sole foundation of an automated processing, where the 2023 clause reads that they are not considered as issued from an automated processing. The institutional change is larger: the Commission nationale pour la protection des données à caractère personnel created by the 2011 Law is replaced by the Autorité pour la Protection des Données Personnelles et de la Vie Privée, the APDPVP, which is the body named throughout the enforcement chapter. The Law carries no commencement article and art. 221 is a bare registration, publication and execution clause, so nothing is deferred. The date recorded here is the date of the gazette in which the Law was promulgated and published: Journal Officiel de la République Gabonaise n° 218 Bis of 15 July 2023, printed on the running head of every page of the issue. The Law itself is dated 12 July 2023 at Libreville, and the promulgating decree in the same issue bears the same date. Confidence is medium because the Gabonese general publication-to-force rule was not verified against a primary source: if force runs from promulgation the operative date is 12 July 2023, three days earlier. Both candidate dates are long past, so the lifecycle of this row is unaffected either way. On sourcing: the official gazette host journal-officiel.ga returned HTTP 503 on every path when this entry was first checked, so the text was originally read in the scan of Journal Officiel n° 218 Bis published by the AFAPDP, the association of Francophone data-protection authorities of which Gabon's regulator is a member. Re-checked 24 August 2026: journal-officiel.ga is now reachable. Its own pages confirm the citation directly — https://journal-officiel.ga/20089-166-pr-/ carries Décret n° 166/PR du 12/07/2023 promulgating the Law and citing Journal Officiel n° 218 Bis du 15 Juillet 2023, and https://journal-officiel.ga/20085-025-2023-/ hosts the law text itself (headed "Loi N° 025/2023 du 09/07/2023", the National Assembly adoption date, distinct from the 12 July promulgation decree). The source_url now points at the official gazette site directly rather than at the AFAPDP mirror. Care is needed with that issue: it also carries Loi n° 027/2023 on cybersecurity and cybercrime, whose own arts. 49 to 66 create heavy imprisonment and fine penalties that have nothing to do with the data-protection Law and must not be attributed to it. Text read across the whole of Loi n° 025/2023, including the definitions, the arts. 4 to 6 scope, the art. 43 access right, arts. 77 to 79, and the arts. 199 to 221 recourse, control, sanctions and final chapters. The definitions article of this Law is the only place in the Francophone African block where artificial intelligence is defined in a binding data-protection statute; separately, Gabon now also has an AI-specific instrument outside the data-protection Law — see ga-ord0011-2026-ai-content. Confirmed 2026-09-25: Gabon's Code Civil (Loi n. 15/72 du 29 juillet 1972) Article premier reads 'Les lois acquierent force executoire en vertu de la promulgation qui en est faite par le President de la Republique' -- force attaches at promulgation, not Journal Officiel publication. The date recorded here is accordingly corrected from 15 July 2023 (JO n.218 Bis masthead) to 12 July 2023 (Decret n. 166/PR promulgation date); confidence raised from medium to high. This does not change the lifecycle (already 'force' either way, both dates being long past).
Stated maximum penalty — Art. 77 is reached by the administrative catch-all in art. 203, which provides that the Authority appraises and pronounces, without graduation, according to the breach of the present Law established, a warning against a controller not respecting the obligations flowing from the Law, a mise en demeure to cause the established breaches to cease within the time limit it fixes, and a pecuniary sanction. The phrase "sans graduation" matters: unlike Congo, where the fine becomes available only once a mise en demeure has been defied, the Gabonese Authority is expressly freed from any obligation to escalate through the list in order. Art. 204 sets the pecuniary regime. Where the controller does not comply with the mise en demeure addressed to them they may be summoned to a hearing, and after contradictory debate the APDPVP may pronounce a provisional suspension of the collection and processing of personal data for three months, becoming definitive on expiry, and a fine of one million to one hundred million francs CFA. The amount must be proportionate to the gravity of the breaches and to the advantages derived from them. On a first breach it may not exceed ninety-eight million four hundred thousand francs CFA. On recidivism it may not exceed three hundred million francs CFA or, in the case of an undertaking, 5 per cent of pre-tax turnover for the last closed financial year within a limit of one hundred and ninety-six million francs CFA. That absolute ceiling on the percentage limb is distinctive and is worth reading carefully: because the 5 per cent figure is itself capped at one hundred and ninety-six million francs CFA, the turnover limb binds only undertakings with pre-tax turnover below roughly 3.9 billion francs CFA, and above that threshold the percentage ceases to have any effect — the opposite of how the equivalent ceilings work in Guinea, Côte d'Ivoire, Niger and Burkina Faso, where the percentage is the escalating term. Where the APDPVP has pronounced a pecuniary sanction that has become definitive before the criminal court has finally ruled on the same or connected facts, the court may order the pecuniary sanction to be set off against the fine it pronounces. Art. 205 allows warnings to be made public and, where the controller is in bad faith, the insertion of sanctions in publications at the sanctioned person's expense. Art. 206 exposes a controller holding a récépissé or authorisation who does not respect the Law's obligations, after mise en demeure, to suspension of the récépissé or authorisation for up to two months, definitive withdrawal on expiry of the suspension, and a fine of one million to one hundred million francs CFA. Art. 207 treats a controller holding neither as a de facto controller, exposed to a fine of one million to one hundred million francs CFA together with a mise en demeure to regularise. Art. 208 supplies emergency powers, including interruption of the processing for a maximum of three months, where implementation of a processing or exploitation of data entails a violation of rights and liberties. On the penal side art. 213 punishes obstruction of the APDPVP with six months to one year's imprisonment and a fine of one million to ten million francs CFA; no penal article of this Law reaches art. 77.
Gabon
◆Binding
Binds Art. 2 scope: the ordonnance applies to every user, editor or host of online social networks and digital platforms as soon as the content diffused is accessible on, or produces its effects on, Gabonese territory, and it also covers the treatment of any offer of publicly accessible online communication goods or services, whether free or for consideration. Art. 32's prohibitions attach to the content itself «indépendamment de leur lieu de création», so they reach content generated abroad; art. 41 gives the référé judge express extraterritorial competence. Art. 33's twenty-four-hour takedown duty binds the éditeur and the hébergeur as defined in art. 3 — respectively the person who by an active role and moderation power controls and implements diffusion, and the person who supplies the technical means of storage and public availability of third-party content. Art. 34's audit power reaches any social network or platform on which AI detection and marking systems are deployed. No size, turnover or user-number threshold appears anywhere in the ordonnance. Impact tier: all entities.. Chapitre VII of Ordonnance n° 0011/PR/2026 du 26 février 2026 portant réglementation de l'usage des réseaux sociaux et des plateformes numériques — «De la régulation des contenus générés par intelligence artificielle» — is Gabon's first AI-specific binding rule, and it consists of exactly three articles. Art. 32 prohibits on national territory, «indépendamment de leur lieu de création», four classes of AI-generated content: hypertrucages realistically depicting an identifiable natural person in sexual situations without their express consent; hypertrucages of a public or private figure attributing to them false statements or conduct of a nature to cause serious harm to public order, national security or the dignity of persons; the representation of sexual situations involving minors, whatever the technical modality; and imitation of the visual or sound identity of a Gabonese State institution for disinformation purposes. Its closing paragraph makes content falling under those prohibitions liable to «la saisine immédiate du juge des référés». Art. 33 gives any identifiable natural person represented in AI-generated content published on a social network or digital platform without their consent a droit de signalement: the right to seise the editor or host to remove the illicit content within a maximum of twenty-four hours from the report, and, on refusal or inaction within that period, to go directly to the Haute Autorité de la Communication or the competent courts. Art. 34 lets the Haute Autorité de la Communication or the Ministère Public, on its own initiative, commission an independent technical audit of the AI-content detection and marking systems deployed on a social network or platform. Two provisions outside the chapter carry the AI rule further. Art. 42, in the référé numérique procedure created by arts. 39 to 44, lists among the provisional measures the juge des référés may order «l'apposition forcée d'un marquage d'origine sur un contenu généré par intelligence artificielle» — a court-ordered origin marking, alongside temporary suspension of an account or content, targeted de-referencing and publication of a correction; art. 41 gives that judge expressly territorial and extraterritorial competence and requires a ruling «d'heure à heure». Art. 52 supplies the one AI-specific criminal aggravator in the ordonnance: identity usurpation via a social network or platform is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of up to 20,000,000 FCFA, but where the same offences are committed «par le biais d'une intelligence artificielle» the penalty rises to ten years' imprisonment and a fine of up to 50,000,000 FCFA. The definitions article, art. 3, defines Contenu généré par intelligence artificielle as any text, image, video, audio or synthetic content created or substantially modified by an automated algorithmic system; Hypertrucage ou deepfake as image, audio or video content generated or manipulated by an artificial intelligence resembling existing persons, objects, places, entities or events and which would falsely appear authentic or truthful to a person; Intelligence Artificielle as a logical and automated process generally resting on an algorithm able to carry out well-defined tasks — the same formula as the Loi n° 025/2023 definition; and Marquage d'origine as a technical process allowing persistent and verifiable identification that a content was generated or modified by an artificial-intelligence system. The general labelling duty that gives that last definition its operative effect is not here: it sits in art. 53, in the transitional chapter, and is deferred — tracked separately as ga-ord0011-2026-art53-marquage.
Corrected 1 September 2026 against the primary gazette text, which had not been read when this row was first written on the same date; the original row rested on secondary legal commentary and was wrong in two respects that mattered. First, it recorded a labelling duty for AI-generated content as in force from 8 April 2026. The ordonnance contains no labelling duty in Chapitre VII at all: the marking obligation is in art. 53, in Chapitre XI «Des dispositions transitoires, diverses et finales», and it is expressly subject to a twelve-month period running from publication, so it does not bite until April 2027. That limb has been split out into ga-ord0011-2026-art53-marquage at lifecycle dateset. Second, the original row carried «fines up to 50,000,000 FCFA» as the penalty, taken from press reporting. Chapitre X, arts. 45 to 52, is the penal chapter, and none of arts. 45, 46, 47, 48, 50 or 51 attaches to arts. 32, 33 or 34: they punish, respectively, failure to publish mandatory identity information, an host's failure to give the editor identification means, failure to insert a right of reply within forty-eight hours, failure in the duty to combat the diffusion of illicit content, obstruction of the Haute Autorité de la Communication, and phishing. The 5,000,000 to 50,000,000 FCFA band the press attributed to the AI rules is the band of arts. 45, 46 and 48. The only penalty in the ordonnance that is AI-specific on its face is the final paragraph of art. 52, recorded in the penalty field here. There is no criminal penalty attached to art. 32 itself; its enforcement route is the référé numérique of arts. 39 to 44, which is a provisional-measures procedure, and art. 43 provides that any measure the référé judge orders expires automatically if no proceedings on the merits are commenced within one month of the seisin. Structure confirmed against the text: 55 articles in 11 chapters, signed at Libreville 26 February 2026 by the President of the Republic and countersigned by the Ministers of the Digital Economy, Defence, Communication and Media, the Interior and Justice. Art. 55 is a bare abrogation-of-contrary-provisions, registration and publication clause with no deferred commencement, so arts. 32 to 34, 39 to 44 and 52 took effect on publication. The date recorded is the opening date of the gazette issue in which the ordonnance was published, Journal Officiel de la République Gabonaise n° 110 covering 8 to 15 April 2026; the issue is dated as a week rather than as a day, so the true publication date lies between 8 and 15 April 2026, and confidence is set to medium on that account alone — every other statement in this row is read directly off the gazette text at pages 135 to 141. On sourcing: the official gazette host journal-officiel.ga carries the landing page for this instrument at https://journal-officiel.ga/22404-0011-pr-2026-/ but its port 443 timed out on every attempt this session, as it did when the Loi n° 025/2023 row was first written. The source_url therefore points at a complete scan of Journal Officiel n° 110 itself — every page carries the gazette's own running head «JOURNAL OFFICIEL DE LA REPUBLIQUE GABONAISE — 8 AU 15 AVRIL 2026 — N° 110» and its own pagination — rather than at a landing page that cannot be opened. Note one scanning artefact in the gazette itself: the AI aggravator paragraph of art. 52 prints the currency as «FCEA», a typographic error for FCFA, which is the unit used in every other penal article of the same chapter. Two companion ordonnances of the same date in the same issue, 0012/PR/2026 amending the Code de la Communication and 0013/PR/2026 on the Haute Autorité de la Communication, are not separately tracked: neither carries an AI-specific rule. Distinct from, and additional to, the automated-decision rule of the data-protection statute at Loi n° 025/2023 art. 77 — see ga-loi0252023-art77. Source moved 16 September 2026 off directinfosgabon.com (a Gabonese news site) onto the Journal Officiel's own host: the live page at https://journal-officiel.ga/22404-0011-pr-2026-/ still times out on port 443 from this egress, as it has every session since this row was written, so the citation is the Internet Archive's capture of that same official page — https://web.archive.org/web/20260611101549/https://journal-officiel.ga/22404-0011-pr-2026-/ — the CAR/Senegal/São Tomé remedy. The archived page is the gazette's own HTML rendering of Ordonnance n° 0011/PR/2026, not a scan, and its full text of arts. 32-34, 42, 45-53 and the signature block (Libreville, 26 February 2026, Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema, countersigned by the Ministers of Digital Economy, Defence, Communications, Interior and Justice) was re-read end to end against this row and against ga-ord0011-2026-art53-marquage; every fact, including the «FCEA» typo for FCFA in art. 52's AI aggravator, matches verbatim. No substantive change.
Stated maximum penalty — No penal article of the ordonnance attaches to arts. 32, 33 or 34. Enforcement of the art. 32 prohibitions runs through the référé numérique of arts. 39 to 44: the juge des référés, seised by the Ministère Public, the Haute Autorité de la Communication or any person justifying an interest to act, rules «d'heure à heure» with territorial and extraterritorial competence and may order temporary suspension of an account or of a content, targeted de-referencing, publication of a correction, and forced application of an origin marking on AI-generated content; where a viral content causes manifestly serious disturbance, art. 44 adds temporary traffic slowing in identified zones, restriction of specific functionalities and temporary suspension of access to a platform, for a maximum of seventy-two hours. Art. 43 makes every such measure temporary and expires it automatically if no proceedings on the merits begin within one month of the seisin. The single AI-specific criminal penalty is the final paragraph of art. 52: where identity usurpation by means of a social network or digital platform — usurping a third party's identity or using data identifying them, so as to disturb their tranquillity or that of others, harm their honour, standing or interests, or with intent to commit, aid or encourage an illegal activity constituting a délit or a crime, which the preceding paragraph punishes with five years' imprisonment and a fine of up to 20,000,000 FCFA — is committed «par le biais d'une intelligence artificielle», the penalty is ten years' imprisonment and a fine of up to 50,000,000 FCFA. Breach of the art. 33 twenty-four-hour takedown duty is reachable in practice only through art. 48, the general duty of editors and hosts to combat the diffusion of illicit content, punished by one year's imprisonment and a fine of 5,000,000 to 50,000,000 FCFA or one of those penalties only — art. 3 defines contenu illicite as content harming human dignity, privacy, honour, bonnes mœurs or administrative security, which the art. 32 categories will usually satisfy, but the ordonnance does not make that link expressly.
Gabon
◆Binding
Binds «Tout éditeur de réseau social ou de plateforme numérique» — the éditeur only, not the hébergeur, on the art. 3 definitions: the éditeur is the natural or legal person who, by an active role and a power of moderation, controls and implements the diffusion of communications, publications or information on a communication service, social network or online digital platform. Combined with the art. 2 scope, the duty reaches any such editor whose diffused content is accessible on, or produces its effects on, Gabonese territory, with no size, turnover or user-number threshold and no domestic establishment requirement. Impact tier: all entities.. Art. 53 is the opening article of Chapitre XI, «Des dispositions transitoires, diverses et finales», and it is where the operative AI-content labelling duty of the Gabonese ordonnance actually sits. Every editor of a social network or digital platform is required, within a period of twelve months from the publication of the ordonnance, to do four things. To implement effective technical age-verification mechanisms on every new registration. To deploy automatic detection tools for AI-generated content published or shared on its services, according to technical standards set by the texts in force — standards that art. 54 leaves to implementing regulations and that had not been issued as at 1 September 2026. To apply a visible, clear and permanent marking to any content identified as generated or substantially modified by an artificial-intelligence system, accessible to the user without any additional action on their part. And to preserve, and to transmit to the Haute Autorité de la Communication within eight days, the origin metadata of AI-generated content that is the subject of a judicial or administrative investigation. Read with art. 3, which defines Marquage d'origine as a technical process allowing persistent and verifiable identification that a content was generated or modified by an artificial-intelligence system, the third indent is a synthetic-content labelling mandate of the same family as EU AI Act art. 50, but placed on the platform rather than on the generator, and framed as a detection-and-marking duty rather than a provider disclosure. The second indent is unusual in a comparative view: it requires platforms to run AI-content detection, not merely to pass through a label the generator applied. Art. 34, in the AI chapter, presupposes this article by giving the Haute Autorité de la Communication and the Ministère Public power to commission an independent technical audit of «les systèmes de détection et de marquage des contenus générés par intelligence artificielle» deployed on a platform.
Split out of ga-ord0011-2026-ai-content on 1 September 2026 once the primary gazette text was read. The original single row recorded the labelling duty as in force from publication; it is not. Art. 53 opens the transitional chapter and gives «un délai de douze mois à compter de la publication de la présente ordonnance». Applying the commencement method: this is a direct offset from publication, not a named day and not an elapsed-term formula, so it is computed rather than looked up. The one uncertainty is the base date. Journal Officiel de la République Gabonaise n° 110 is dated as a week, «8 au 15 avril 2026», printed on the running head of every page, and not as a single day; Gabonese press reporting of the publication settles on 8 April. The date recorded here is therefore the earliest date on which the twelve-month period can expire, 8 April 2027, and the outer bound is 15 April 2027. Confidence is medium for that reason and for that reason only. Three further points on the shape of this deadline. It is a compliance deadline running against the editor, not a commencement date for the article: the ordonnance itself has been in force since publication, and art. 55 defers nothing. The second indent is conditioned on technical standards «définis par les dispositions des textes en vigueur», and art. 54 provides that regulatory texts determine as needed the provisions necessary for application of the ordonnance; no such text had been published as at 1 September 2026, so the detection-standard limb has no content yet and the deadline may in practice be reached with the standard still unissued. That is a watch item, not a reason to move the date. And the first indent, age verification, is not an AI duty at all; it is recorded here because it shares the article and the same twelve-month clock, and because art. 3 sets the digital age of majority at sixteen. Source: the same scan of Journal Officiel n° 110 used for the Chapitre VII row, art. 53 at page 141 of the issue; the official host journal-officiel.ga timed out on port 443 throughout this session. Source moved 16 September 2026 off directinfosgabon.com (a Gabonese news site) onto the Journal Officiel's own host: the live page at https://journal-officiel.ga/22404-0011-pr-2026-/ still times out on port 443 from this egress, as it has every session since this row was written, so the citation is the Internet Archive's capture of that same official page — https://web.archive.org/web/20260611101549/https://journal-officiel.ga/22404-0011-pr-2026-/ — the CAR/Senegal/São Tomé remedy. The archived page is the gazette's own HTML rendering of Ordonnance n° 0011/PR/2026, not a scan, and its full text of arts. 32-34, 42, 45-53 and the signature block (Libreville, 26 February 2026, Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema, countersigned by the Ministers of Digital Economy, Defence, Communications, Interior and Justice) was re-read end to end against this row and against ga-ord0011-2026-art53-marquage; every fact, including the «FCEA» typo for FCFA in art. 52's AI aggravator, matches verbatim. No substantive change.
Stated maximum penalty — None stated. Art. 53 carries no penalty of its own, and Chapitre X, the penal chapter at arts. 45 to 52, does not reference it: arts. 45 and 46 punish identity-information failures, art. 47 the right of reply, art. 48 the general duty to combat illicit content, art. 50 obstruction of the Haute Autorité de la Communication, and arts. 51 and 52 phishing and identity usurpation. Because the ordonnance predates any implementing text under art. 54, there is at present no stated sanction for an editor that reaches April 2027 without detection tooling or origin marking in place. Two indirect routes exist. Art. 34 lets the Haute Autorité de la Communication or the Ministère Public commission an independent technical audit of the detection and marking systems on its own initiative, and art. 50 punishes obstruction of the Authority — refusing to communicate useful information or documents to its members or authorised agents, concealing or destroying them, or supplying information not conforming to the records — with one year's imprisonment and a fine of 2,000,000 to 20,000,000 FCFA or one of those penalties only, which is the sanction an editor would face for stonewalling such an audit rather than for failing the underlying duty. Separately art. 42 lets the juge des référés order forced application of an origin marking on a given AI-generated content, which is a per-content remedy and not a sanction for breach of art. 53.