Last month, we intervened in the case of Moya Chacón vs. Costa Rica. FLIP, El Veinte and Media Defence submitted a joint amicus brief to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the Court). The Court will assess whether a civil penalty against two journalists violated their freedom of expression.
Ronald Moya Chacón and Freddy Parrales Chaves, working for La Nación, wrote an article about alleged wrongdoing during border checks. Sources had informed Parrales Chaves that several police officers were under investigation in connection with liquor imports from Panama. One of these sources was the then-Minister of Security, who, when contacted, had confirmed the facts.
Following the article’s publication, one of the named police officers filed a criminal complaint against the two journalists for defamation. He maintained that there was no open investigation against him for “illegal liquor trafficking”, as reported. Instead, the investigation related to “a vehicle and a person that should have been sent to customs and immigration and apparently an improper payment [that] was made and received.” Despite a Trial Court ruling that no crime had been committed, the journalists were still held civilly liable for pecuniary damages. They faced a fine of five million Colones (circa £6,000) for the harm allegedly caused to the police officer’s reputation.
Moya Chacón and Parrales Chaves contested these sanctions. Although the information published was partially inaccurate, they had acted in good faith. Moreover, the information had come from an official source, namely the Public Security Minister. The journalists brought their case before the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (the IACHR) in 2008, which referred the case to the Court in August 2020.
The Court will rule on the responsibilities of the journalists when making mistakes in good faith, based on a trusted source. In its application to the Court, the IACHR requested the annulling of the civil sanction imposed on the journalists as well as an order for Costa Rica to adapt its legislation on subsequent liabilities in disputes concerning public interest publications. The standard of proof applied should evaluate the intention, harm, or manifest negligence of the publisher, as well as the principles of proportionality and necessity.
FLIP, El Veinte and Media Defence highlighted the impact of civil proceedings and sanctions on freedom of expression. Firstly, the threat of lawsuits, and their potential outcomes, creates a chilling effect. This is especially true for those reporting on matters that are unflattering to public figures. Secondly, public interest reporting, and the role the press plays in disseminating it, receives heightened protection. This means that the standard of proof in these instances needs to comply with the proportionality principle under the Inter-American System of Human Rights.
The intervening organisations expect the Court to reaffirm that responsibilities should not be applied to mistakes made in good faith. Instead, courts should only apply them in cases where there is evidence of wilful intent or actual malice before publication.
The IA Court hearing can be watched here.
If you are a journalist in need of support, please click here.
Network Coordinator: role summary Media Defence is looking for a highly motivated individual to join the team as a Coordinator for the Legal Network for Journalists at Risk (LNJAR). Media Defence is a Steering Committee Member of the LNJAR. In this role, you will oversee the day-to-day operations of the LNJAR, which provides legal support […]
On Thursday July 21st, 11am BST, we’re hosting a webinar to explore the impact of conflict on freedom of expression. We’ll hear from those directly involved about the violence journalists experience, and the longer-term implications of war on press freedoms. Register here. The Context War reporting by independent journalists is essential to ensuring the public […]
About the survey In 2021, we carried out our second Lawyer Impact Survey to assess the impact of our support to lawyers. We support lawyers with both our emergency defence and our strategic litigation programmes. Through these programmes, we offer pro bono legal support, as well as financial support for lawyers in order to cover […]