Meet the Team: Marta Cabrera

We’re thrilled to welcome Marta Cabrera, an accomplished human rights lawyer, to our team as a legal consultant. With years of experience at both the Inter-American and European Courts of Human Rights, Marta brings invaluable insight to our work.

In this Meet the Team interview, she shares her journey, the cases that shaped her, and what gives her hope for press freedom today.

Hi Marta! Thanks for taking part in our Meet the Team interview series. You’ve had a remarkable career across several major human rights institutions. What first drew you to international human rights law?

From a young age, I had a genuine interest in understanding what was happening in the public sphere, along with a strong awareness of the injustices that exist in the world. A few years into my legal career, I realized that the law can be a powerful tool to transform societies. That insight led me to specialize in human rights, and once I began down that path, I knew I didn’t want to work in any other field. I had found my true calling.

Can you briefly tell us about your journey—from Garrigues to the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights?

After finishing my law degree, I began my career at a commercial law firm, Garrigues, specializing in corporate and commercial law. I discovered that I genuinely enjoyed legal practice—I took pleasure in drafting pleadings, responding to claims, and going to court. However, over time, I realized that while I enjoyed the work itself, the substance of what I was doing didn’t fully resonate with me on a personal level.

After three years at the firm, I decided to shift the direction of my career and specialize in human rights law. I pursued an LL.M. in the Netherlands, which marked the beginning of my true journey in this field. I started as an intern at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and just a few months later, I was offered a consultancy position, followed by a promotion to staff attorney.

A few years later, I had the opportunity to join the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where I lived and worked for four years. When my contract with the European Court came to an end, the Inter-American Court invited me to return—and I didn’t think twice. I packed my bags and moved back to Costa Rica, where I worked for another six years. Eventually, I decided to take a new path and contribute to the field of human rights from civil society.

Having worked at both the European and Inter-American human rights courts, what similarities or differences have you observed in how these systems approach press freedom cases?

One of the main similarities I would highlight is the high level of professionalism I encountered in both courts. Substantively, the work is quite similar, as both systems are grounded in the interpretation of an international human rights treaty and the body of jurisprudence that has developed over time. It’s also worth noting the ongoing judicial dialogue between the two courts, which has led to many shared standards and similar legal reasoning across both systems.

That said, there are also important differences. For example, the size, budget, and years since their creation are quite different, yet this disparity doesn’t necessarily translate into one having a greater impact than the other. In the area of freedom of expression, the European Court of Human Rights has developed an extensive body of case law concerning the role of the press in a democratic society, the protection of journalistic sources, the right to be forgotten, whistleblower protections, and hate speech. In contrast, while the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence on press freedom is more limited in volume, it has not yet had the opportunity to address these same issues in depth. However, it has established particularly protective standards in certain areas—such as the prohibition of criminal prosecution in defamation cases involving public figures—offering, in some respects, a more robust shield for freedom of expression than its European counterpart.

You spent over a decade at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and at the Inter-American Court in San José. How did that experience shape your view of the power—and limits—of international human rights law in defending freedom of expression?

That’s certainly a very interesting question. I would say that my experience at both courts gave me a first-hand understanding of the real impact that a judgment can have—not only on the individual victim, but also on an entire country or region, especially when structural measures are ordered by these Courts and implemented by the States. In the Inter-American Court, for example, this often takes the form of guarantees of non-repetition, while in the European system, the Committee of Ministers plays a key role in supervising the execution of judgments and bears responsibility for overseeing State compliance with the aim of guaranteeing non-repetition of the human rights violations established in the Court’s rulings.

These experiences showed me both the power and the limitations of international human rights law. On one hand, international rulings can catalyse important legal and policy reforms which real impact on people. On the other hand, their effectiveness ultimately depends on the political will of states to comply with their international obligations. That’s why public oversight—particularly by civil society and independent media—is so crucial. They play an essential role in holding governments accountable and ensuring that the commitments made under international law translate into real change on the ground.

Are there any cases you’ve worked on that have particularly stayed with you or inspired you? What made them memorable?

I believe one never truly forgets the cases they’ve worked on, as each one represents the unique story of a victim—or a group of victims.

That said, if I had to highlight one, I would say that the case of Bedoya Lima v. Colombia before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had one of the deepest impacts on me. What made it particularly memorable, first of all, was the extraordinary strength, eloquence, and composure shown by the victim when recounting during the hearing before the Court the horrific events she had endured. Her testimony was profoundly moving. Secondly, it was also the first—and so far, only—time I witnessed a State walk out of a hearing midway, after challenging the impartiality of the majority of the judges. It was an unprecedented and tense moment. And finally, the case has stayed with me because of the judgment’s outcome and the efforts later undertaken by Colombia to comply with the reparations ordered by the Court. I genuinely hope that, after over two decades of pursuing justice, the victims were able to find a sense of recognition and closure through the Court’s ruling.

What motivated you to join Media Defence as a legal consultant in 2025?

Ever since I began working at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and later at the European Court of Human Rights, I’ve always felt a strong calling to one day be on the other side—directly representing victims and putting into practice all the knowledge and experience I’ve gained over the years to support them in their pursuit of justice.

I firmly believe that freedom of expression is a foundational human right—it’s the tool that allows us to defend all other rights. I’ve known about Media Defence’s extraordinary work in defending independent journalism for many years, as well as the excellence of the team behind it. So when the opportunity arose, I didn’t hesitate for a second to apply.

Strategic litigation is central to Media Defence’s work. In your view, what makes a case truly strategic, and what factors contribute to long-term legal or systemic impact?

Based on what I’ve observed throughout my experience in the human rights courts, I believe that a truly strategic case is one where the outcome not only provides meaningful redress to the victims but also contributes to broader societal impact. Such cases often lead to the development of new legal standards in the area of freedom of expression, or to transformative reparations that can provoke systemic change at the national or regional level. In this sense, strategic litigation is not just about winning a case—it’s about shifting frameworks, influencing public policy, and empowering those who have been silenced.

What gives you hope right now when it comes to press freedom and human rights?

I’m deeply aware of the growing threats we face today, ranging from the criminalisation of journalism, the use of spyware against reporters, and strategic lawsuits to silence dissent, to the rise of authoritarian narratives, digital censorship, and disinformation campaigns. These are complex, global challenges that directly impact press freedom and the ability of civil society to hold power to account.

And yet, despite all this, what gives me hope is the resilience of journalists, human rights defenders, and communities around the world who continue to speak truth to power, often at great personal risk. I also find hope in the solidarity networks that have emerged across borders—legal aid organizations, grassroots movements, and digital rights advocates who are working tirelessly to push back.

So while the challenges are real—and in many cases urgent—I truly believe that the collective commitment to defending rights is stronger than ever.

Finally, do you have a podcast, documentary, or article recommendation for us?

Absolutely! For our English-speaking community, I highly recommend the podcast Asymmetrical Haircuts, which offers sharp and timely discussions on international law topics, often through a gender lens and always with great insight.

For our Spanish-speaking community, I suggest Radio Ambulante — a brilliantly produced podcast that covers current events across Latin America. Several of its episodes have even addressed cases that were brought before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. And for those who are just starting out in the world of international human rights law and speak Spanish, I recommend the educational platform Estudia Derechos Humanos. It does a fantastic job of explaining the core principles of public international law and human rights law in a clear yet rigorous way, always connecting the theory to pressing real-world issues.

Thank you Marta!