DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter I General Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter I General Information CHAPTER II EVALUATION OF THE STATE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE HEMISPHERE A. Introduction and methodology 1. The right to freedom of expression is a universal right of all individuals, without which the most important of liberties—the right to think for oneself and shares one’s views with others—is denied. The full exercise of the right to express one’s own ideas and opinions, to share information that is available, and to deliberate openly and without restrictions regarding the issues that concern us all is an indispensable condition for the consolidation, functioning and preservation of democratic regimes.1 2. This chapter describes some of the most important aspects of freedom of expression in the hemisphere during 2010. Its objective is to begin a constructive dialogue with the Member States of the OAS, calling attention to the reported advances as well as the problems and challenges that have required action during this period. The Office of the Special Rapporteur has confidence in the will of the OAS Member States to promote decisively the right to freedom of expression and, to that end, to publicize their best practices, report the most serious problems observed, and formulate viable and practical recommendations based on the Declaration of Principles. 3. As in previous annual reports, this chapter exposes the aspects of the right to freedom of expression that merit greater attention and that have been reported to the Office of the Special Rapporteur during the year. Following the methodology of previous annual reports, this chapter is developed from the information received by the Office of the Special Rapporteur from various State and non-governmental sources. The information provided by States, collected during official visits,2 presented during the hearings held by the IACHR, submitted by non-governmental organizations in the region, and contained in alerts sent by media and communicators is of particular importance to the Special Rapporteurship. In all cases, the information is contrasted and verified so that the only information that is published is that which will serve to assist the States to identify particularly problems or tendencies that must be addressed before they could eventually cause irreparable effects. 4. The selected information is ordered and systematized in a manner so as to present the advances, setbacks, and challenges in various aspects of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, including progress made in legal or legislative matters, as well as the most serious problems that arose throughout the year, such as murders, threats and attacks against journalists related to the exercise of their profession; the application of disproportionate subsequent imposition of liability; threats against the right to keep sources confidential; the progress and challenges in the right to access to information; and the problems detected in the allocation of government advertising, among others. 5. The cases selected in each topic seek to serve as paradigmatic examples that reflect the situation in each country in relation to the respect and exercise of freedom of expression. Sources are cited in all cases. It is pertinent to clarify that the omission of analysis of the situation 1 IACHR, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Inter-American Framework on the Right to Freedom of Expression. OEA/Ser.L/V/II IACHR/RELE/INF. 2/09. December 30, 2009, paras. 7-8. Available at http://www.cidh.org/pdf%20files/Inter%20American%20Legal%20Framework%20english.pdf 2 Towards the end of this chapter, the methodology used by the Office of the Special Rapporteur to collect, classify and assess the information gathered on official visits is presented as an annex. 28 of some cases or States is due to the fact that the Office of the Special Rapporteur has not received sufficient information. As such, these omissions should be interpreted only in this sense. In the majority of cases, the Office of the Special Rapporteur provides the direct source, citing the electronic address of the corresponding Web site. When the information is not published directly, the report cites the date the information was received in the electronic mailbox of the Office of the Special Rapporteur. This report does not include information that has been submitted to the Office of the Special Rapporteur through requests for precautionary measures, which has not yet been made public. 6. In preparing this chapter of its 2010 Annual Report, the Office of the Special Rapporteur generally took into account information received until December 1, 2010. However, the report includes some particulary serious incidents that occurred during the month of December as well as events that began before but concluded in December. Information regarding incidents that occurred after December 1 is available in the press release section of the websites of the Office of the Special Rapporteur (http://www.cidh.org/relatoria) and the IACHR (http://www.cidh.org). 7. Finally, the Office of the Special Rapporteur acknowledges the collaboration of the OAS Member States and the civil society organizations that contributed information about the situation of the exercise of freedom of expression in the hemisphere. The Office of the Special Rapporteur encourages the continuation of this practice, as it is fundamental for the enrichment of future reports. B. Evaluation of the state of freedom of expression in the Member States 1. Argentina 8. The Office of the Special Rapporteur observes with satisfaction that on July 5, the Argentine State carried out a public ceremony to recognize its responsibility for the violation of the human rights of journalist Eduardo Kimel.3 Kimel had been sentenced in March of 1999 to one year in prison, suspended, and the payment of damages for criticizing the actions of a judge in his book The San Patricio Massacre. The book was the result of an investigation that was published in November 1989 on the murder of five followers of the Pallotine Society of Apostolic Life. In complying with the judgment, in 2009 the Argentine State eliminated the application of defamation laws to expression that is in the public interest. 9. The Office of the Special Rapporteur values the May 19, 2010, judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in the case of Miguel Ángel Di Salvo versus newspaper El Diario La Mañana. The judgment struck down a ruling from the National Chamber of Civil Appeals against the newspaper. The Supreme Court’s civil judgment reiterated the doctrine of actual malice, according to which, “With regard to information referring to public figures, when the news item contains false or inaccurate expressions, those who consider themselves affected must demonstrate that those who made said expression or accusation knew the news item was false and acted with the knowledge that it was false or with evident recklessness with regard to its veracity.”4 3 Página 12. July 5, 2010. CFK leads tribute to Eduardo Kimel. Available at: http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/ultimas/20-148895-2010-07-05.html; La Nación. July 5, 2010. President blames courts for holdup in Media Law. Available at: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1281836 4 The case began in March 2003 with a publication that gave inaccurate information on the size of properties owned by Di Salvo, a provincial senator, former mayor, and former council member. Although the newspaper corrected the information several days later, Di Salvo insisted that it had intentionally offended him. A lower court judge rejected the lawsuit; however, Chamber A of the National Civil Appeals Chamber overturned the lower court’s ruling and sentenced the newspaper La Mañana to pay $20,000 and publish the operative part of the sentence on the front page of its Sunday edition. Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Republic of Argentina. May 19, 2010. Di Salvo, Miguel Ángel v. Diario La Mañana Continued… 29 10. Likewise, the Office of the Special Rapporteur hails the June 8, 2010, judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in the case of Canavesi versus the newspaper El Día. That ruling overturned a conviction against the newspaper for publishing false information on a private individual based on information provided by a government source.5 11. The Office of the Special Rapporteur was informed of a June 15, 2010, ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation approving the system for placement of government advertising in the Neuquén Province government, in compliance with a paradigmatic judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in September 2007 in favor of the newspaper Río Negro. The case originated in a writ of constitutional appeal filed by the newspaper over the suspension of official advertising by the provincial government following the newspaper’s publication of articles raising questions about the Neuquén governor in December 2002.6 12. The Office of the Special Rapporteur recognizes the importance of the fact that the Congress of the Nation of Argentina took up once again in 2010 discussion of the Access to Information Act. The bill was passed by the Senate on September 30 and continues to be processed through the Chamber of Deputies.7 However, it is crucial that the project move forward and the State put in place a legal framework for accessing information that hews to international standards on the subject. 13. Although Argentina does not yet have a general access law, it has seen several important judicial rulings that it is relevant to highlight. The Office of the Special Rapporteur learned that on November 2, the Adversarial Administrative Federal Chamber8 upheld a ruling by the …continuation on damages. Case File D 281. XLIII. Available through: http://www.csjn.gov.ar/jurisprudencia.html. Association of Argentine Journalism Entities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Apuntes a Dos Décadas De Periodismo Bajo Presión FUNDACION GUILLERMO CANO ISAZA
    Fundación Guillermo Cano Isaza 1986-2006: Apuntes a dos décadas de periodismo bajo presión FUNDACION GUILLERMO CANO ISAZA Presidenta Fundación Guillermo Cano Isaza Ana María Busquets de Cano Directora Fundación Guillermo Cano Isaza Marisol Cano Busquets Editores Fernando Cano Busquets Marisol Cano Busquets Textos Ignacio Gómez Germán Rey Diseño Gráfico Alfonso Cano Busquets Corrección de estilo Óscar Hernández Fotografías Archivo El Espectador Impresión Cedro Impresores S.A. VERSIÓN EN INGLÉS www.fundacionguillermocano.com apartado aéreo: 91874 www.fundacionguillermocano.com [email protected] Bogotá D.C. Colombia …ya se va haciendo costumbre en el país reaccionar violentamente, a mano armada, contra las informaciones y comentarios periodísticos, e individualmente contra los autores de éstos. Ni en las más aberrantes épocas de censura de prensa, o de retaliación política, se acudió al crimen para acallar a la prensa en una de sus más nobles y altas funciones democráticas. (…) La labor de amedrentamiento y fatiga que el crimen organizado se ha impuesto contra la prensa atenta no sólo contra los medios informativos. En la medida y modo como sus amenazas y hechos prosperen, y así será si no se emprende una valerosa e irreductible campaña contra el ofensivo procedimiento, la sensación de asedio y peligro se reflejará negativamente sobre el propio sistema democrático. En los últimos tiempos, más que en cualquier otra época anterior, las denuncias de la prensa, sobre todo de la prensa escrita, han servido para devolver al país su confianza en la honradez seriamente amenazada desde diferentes sectores de la vida nacional. De no haber sido por la prensa, el desbordado y rapaz imperio de los grupos financieros comprometidos en el mal manejo de la captación de ahorros se habría prolongado silenciosamente con incalculable detrimento para la economía nacional y la paz social.
    [Show full text]
  • BOLETIN 4592 DE REGISTROS DEL 03 ABRIL DE 2017 PUBLICADO 04 ABRIL DE 2017 Para Los Efectos Señalados En El Artículo 70 Del Có
    BOLETIN 4592 DE REGISTROS DEL 03 ABRIL DE 2017 PUBLICADO 04 ABRIL DE 2017 Para los efectos señalados en el artículo 70 del Código de Procedimiento Administrativo y de lo Contencioso Administrativo, se informa que: Contra los actos de inscripción en el registro mercantil que aparecen relacionados en el presente boletín proceden los recursos de reposición y de apelación. Contra el acto que niega la apelación procede el recurso de queja. El recurso de reposición deberá interponerse ante la misma Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá, para que ella confirme, aclare o revoque el respectivo acto de inscripción. El recurso de apelación deberá interponerse ante la misma Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá, para que la Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio confirme, aclare o revoque el acto de inscripción expedido por la primera entidad. El recurso de queja deberá interponerse ante la Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio, para que ella determine si es procedente o no el recurso de apelación que haya sido negado por la Cámara de Comercio de Bogotá. Los recursos de reposición y apelación deberán interponerse por escrito dentro de los diez (10) días hábiles siguientes a esta publicación. El recurso de queja deberá ser interpuesto por escrito dentro de los cinco días siguientes a la notificación del acto por medio del cual se resolvió negar el de apelación. Al escrito contentivo del recurso de queja deberá anexarse copia de la providencia negativa de la apelación. Los recursos deberán interponerse dentro del término legal, expresar las razones de la inconformidad, expresar el nombre y la dirección del recurrente y 1 relacionar cuando sea del caso las pruebas que pretendan hacerse valer.
    [Show full text]
  • Content Catalogue
    CONTENT CATALOGUE Consejo Nacional de las Asamblea & Artes y la Cultura en Junta Directiva Cámara de Comercio Cinematografía - CNACC Proimágenes Colombia de Bogotá Junta Directiva MARIANA GARCÉS CÓRDOBA MARIANA GARCÉS CÓRDOBA MÓNICA DE GREIFF LINDO Ministra de Cultura Ministra de Cultura Presidencia Ejecutiva ADELFA MARTÍNEZ ENZO ARIZA GUILLERMO BOTERO NIETO Directora de Cinematografía Secretario General Presidente Junta Directiva DARÍO VARGAS LINARES ADELFA MARTÍNEZ WILLIAM PARRA DURÁN Delegado Ministra de Cultura Directora de Cinematografía Vicepresidente HÉCTOR ROSAS JUANITA RODRÍGUEZ REPRESENTANTES DEL Representante Distribuidores Ministerio de las Tecnologías SECTOR PRIVADO de la Información y las ANDRÉS SÁNCHEZ DUQUE Comunicaciones Principales: Representante Guillermo BOTERO NIETO Sector Artístico/Creativo YANETH GIHA TOVAR Gonzalo SERRANO RODRÍGUEZ Ministerio de Educación Juan Diego TRUJILLO MEJÍA CARLOS ENRIQUE Carlos Augusto RAMÍREZ OGLIASTRI GARCÉS JAVIER OLARTE TRIANA Jaime Alfonso Representante Exhibidores Universidad Nacional MANTILLA GARCÍA de Colombia Gonzalo ECHEVERRY GARZÓN SERGIO SÁNCHEZ ÁLVAREZ Germán Alfredo Representante Directores HERNANDO GALLO BERNAL ORTIZ CÁRDENAS DIAN Francisco DURÁN CASAS EDGAR MONTAÑEZ MUÑOZ Representante Sector Técnico GILBERTO GALLEGO Suplentes: Cine Colombia S.A. Jorge Arnulfo PACHÓN FERNANDO Juan David ÁNGEL BOTERO CHARRY GONZÁLEZ FERNÁN Hugo Fernando GARCÍA Representante GARCÍA DE LA TORRE Sandra NEIRA LIÉVANO Consejos Departamentales Asociación Colombiana de Luis Fernando ÁNGEL MORENO
    [Show full text]
  • University of California, San Diego
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The coverage of mass media on the 2008 and 2009 indigenous mobilizations in Colombia Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8v2787wd Author Cortes, Diego M. Publication Date 2010 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO The Coverage of Mass Media on the 2008 and 2009 Indigenous Mobilizations in Colombia A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Latin American Studies by Diego M. Cortes Committee in Charge: Professor Daniel Hallin, Chair Professor Nancy Grey Postero Professor John McMurria 2010 The Thesis of Diego M. Cortes is approved and is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2010 iii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to the members of the ACIN, CRIC, ONIC, journalists, scholars and human rights advocates, who put their lives on risk in order to construct a better Colombian society. iv EPIGRAPH “¿De que Sirve la Decencia en el Pais de la Seguridad Democratica?” (Fernando Vallejo, 2010) v TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page……………………………………………………………………. iii Dedication ………………………………………………………………………... iv Epigraph………………………………………………………………………….. v Table of Contents……………………………………………………………….... vi List of Tables……………………………………………………………………… vii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………..... viii Abstract…………………………………………………………………………… x Introduction………………………………………………………………………... 1 Chapter 1: The Indigenous Movement of Cauca...……………………………….. 8 Chapter 2: Structural Problems of Colombian Mass Media……………………… 34 Chapter 3: The 2008 and 2009 Indigenous Mobilizations in Cauca……………… 55 Chapter 4: Content Analysis………………….…………………………………… 78 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………... 125 Bibliography………………………………………………………………….….. 136 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Criminalization …………………………………………………........
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter I General Information
    INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 5 4 March 2011 Original: Spanish AANNNNUUAALL RREEPPOORRTT OOFF TTHHEE IINNTTEERR--AAMMEERRIICCAANN CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN OONN HHUUMMAANN RRIIGGHHTTSS 22001100 REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Dr. Catalina Botero Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on March 4, 2011 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 2010 INDEX Page TABLE OF ACRONYMS AND REFERENCES....................................................................................................VII INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER I GENERAL INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................3 A. Creation of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression and Institutional Support ........................................................................................ 3 B. Mandate of the Office of the Special Rapporteur ................................................. 6 C. Principal Activities of the Office of the Special Rapporteur.................................... 7 1. Individual Case System: Strategic Litigation on Freedom of Expression within the inter-American System ..............................................................................7
    [Show full text]