New York, September 28, 2004—In a decision with broad
implications for press freedom in Latin America, the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights has ruled that a criminal defamation conviction in Paraguay
violated international law. The court, in a decision handed down this
month, found that the criminal proceedings themselves violated the American
Convention on Human Rights because they were an "excessive limitation
in a democratic society."
The court is an arm of the Organization of American States (OAS) and its
decisions are binding on member nations. The ruling, coupled with an August
decision overturning a criminal defamation conviction in Costa Rica, seems
to signal a broad shift against criminal defamation laws in Latin America.
The Paraguayan case dates to August 1992, when presidential candidate
Ricardo Canese questioned rival Juan Carlos Wasmosy about ties to former
dictator Alfredo Stroessner. In statements to the local press, Canese
said that Wasmosy, who went on to become president, was Stroessner's front
man in a construction partnership known as CONEMPA. The partnership had
been awarded a contract to build the giant Itaipú hydroelectric
power plant on the Paraguay-Brazil border.
In October 1992, CONEMPA business partners whom Canese had not named in
his statements filed complaints alleging libel and defamation. In March
1994, a judge sentenced Canese to four months in prison and ordered him
to pay a US$7,500 fine. An appeals court rejected Canese's appeal in November
1997, though it reduced his sentence to two months in prison and a US$600
fine. The Supreme Court dismissed an initial appeal, and Canese took the
case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The commission
is the human rights monitoring arm of the OAS.
In June 2002, the commission asked the Inter-American Court to declare
that Paraguay violated Canese's right to freedom of thought and expression,
as well as other rights guaranteed by the American Convention on Human
Rights. Paraguay's Supreme Court, fearing a ruling against the country,
dismissed the case against Canese in late 2002, but the Inter-American
Court continued with its proceedings.
The Inter-American Court, in a decision made public September 14, ruled
that both the conviction and prosecution itself violated Article 13 of
the American Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression.
The Inter-American Court, which is charged with interpreting the American
Convention, also ordered Paraguay to pay Canese US$35,000 in damages.
The court found that the criminal proceeding and sentence "constituted
an unnecessary and excessive sanction for statements made in the context
of the electoral campaign, in reference to another candidate for the presidency
and matters of public interest." Such sanctions, the court said, "limited
an open debate on issues of interest or public concern."
The Committee to Protect Journalists, which has helped fight criminal
defamation laws in Latin America, hailed the court ruling.
"This is a major step forward for freedom of expression and the campaign
to decriminalize defamation from the Americas that could have broad implications
throughout the world," CPJ Executive Director Ann Cooper said. "The legal
logic of this decision requires that governments in Latin America refrain
from prosecuting journalists on defamation charges and reform their defamation
laws to eliminate criminal penalties."
The Canese decision built on an August ruling in a case involving the
Costa Rican newspaper, La Nación. In that case, the court
overturned the criminal defamation conviction of reporter Mauricio Herrera
Ulloa, and ordered the Costa Rican government to compensate him. In a
concurring opinion, Judge Sergio García Ramírez, president
of the Court, questioned the basic idea of criminalizing defamation and
suggested that such laws should be repealed.
On September 10, Eduardo Bertoni, OAS special rapporteur for freedom of
expression, convened a meeting at CPJ offices to discuss the Herrera ruling.
A declaration ratified by the free press and legal advocates asserted:
"Criminal defamation is a disproportionate and unnecessary response to
the need to protect reputations [and] ... civil defamation laws provide
sufficient redress for all those who claim to have been defamed."
READ THE FULL DECLARATION
>>
|
