Chapter Ii Evaluation of the State of Freedom of Expression in the Hemisphere
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHAPTER II EVALUATION OF THE STATE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE HEMISPHERE A. Introduction and methodology 1. This chapter describes some of the most important aspects of the situation of freedom of expression in the hemisphere during 2012. 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, publicizes their best practices, reports some serious problems observed, and formulates viable and practical recommendations based on the Declaration of Principles. 2. 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 States, intergovernmental and non-governmental sources. The information provided by States, 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 Office of the Special Rapporteur. 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 worrisome problems or tendencies that must be addressed before they could eventually cause irreparable effects. 3. 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, administrative or legislative matters, as well as the most serious problems that arose throughout the year, such as murders, threats and attacks against journalists that could have been related to the exercise of their profession; impositions of subsequent liability that may result disproportionate; the progress and challenges in the right to access to information, among others. 4. The cases selected in each topic serve as 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 information on the situation of some cases that had its analysis omitted is due to the fact that the Office of the Special Rapporteur has not received sufficient confirmed information about them. As such, any 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 by the source, 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, or other information which has not yet been made public. 5. In preparing this chapter of its 2012 annual report, the Office of the Special Rapporteur generally took into account information received until November, 2012. Information regarding incidents that occurred after the date the 2012 annual report went to press 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). 6. Finally, the Office of the Special Rapporteur acknowledges the collaboration of the OAS Member States and the civil society organizations that, following existing practice, contributed information about the situation of the exercise of freedom of expression in the hemisphere. As it does every year, 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 A. Progress 7. The Office of the Special Rapporteur expresses its satisfaction at two access to information laws passed at the provincial level in Argentina. On March 2, Law No. 5.336 - Access to Public Information in Catamarca - entered into force after its corresponding regulations were published in the official local gazette. According to the information, the provincial Congress passed the law in August 2011 and its regulations were approved in November.1 Additionally, on June 7 the Access to Public Information Act was passed by the Chamber of Representatives of the Province of Misiones.2 8. On December 4, 2012, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation upheld the right of all people to access information held by the State. The case originated in a request for information submitted by the Association for Civil Rights to the National Institute of Social Services for Pensioners and Retired Persons [Instituto Nacional de Servicios Sociales para Jubilados y Pensionados] (PAMI in its Spanish acronym) regarding its expenditures on government advertising.3 The request was made in the context of Decree 1172/03 on Access to Public Information, which applies to the National Executive Branch.4 According to the ruling, PAMI had only partially provided the information requested and argued that Decree 1172/03 was not applicable because the agency holds legal status as an entity apart from the National State. Citing the case of Claude Reyes v. Chile and the reports of the Office of the Special Rapporteur, inter alia, the Supreme Court ruled that “in order for States to comply with their general obligation to adjust their domestic legal systems to the American Convention in this sense, they must guarantee this right not only in the purely administrative realm or in the realm of institutions under the Executive Branch, but also with regard to all government bodies.” Likewise, the Court reiterated its prior case law with regard to “the direct and immediate correlation of the right to access to information and government advertising with the right to freedom of the press,” and ordered the PAMI to turn over the requested information.5 1 Government of Catamarca. Decree GJ No. 2089. November 30, 2011. Reglaméntese la Ley No. 5.336 “Acceso a la Información Pública”. Available at: http://www.digesto.catamarca.gov.ar/cod/Leyes1/Ley5336/a1.html; IFEX/ Foro de Periodismo Argentino (FOPEA). March 8, 2012. Reglamentan ley provincial de acceso a la información en Catamarca. Available at: http://www.ifex.org/argentina/2012/03/08/catamarca_avance/es/. According to Article 9 of Law 5.336, the law will enter into force once the authorities dictate “the norms that establish the legal framework governing actions and procedures” [“las normas que establezcan los regímenes de actuación y procedimientos”]. Law No. 5.336 – Decree No. 1369, Regulations pursuant to Article 11 of the Provincial Constitution (Catamarca). August 11, 2011. Available at: http://www.digesto.catamarca.gov.ar/cod/Leyes1/Ley5336/5336.html 2 Law IV No. 58. Free Access to Public Information (Libre Acceso a la Información Pública). June 7, 2012. Available at: http://www.infojus.gov.ar/index.php?kk_seccion=documento®istro=LEYPROV&docid=LEY%2520N%2520000058%25202012%2 52006%252007; Chamber of Representatives of the Province of Misiones. June 8, 2012. Misiones cuenta con una ley de libre acceso a la información pública. Available at: http://www.diputadosmisiones.gov.ar/content.php?id_content=1082; Foro de Periodismo Argentino (FOPEA). June 12, 2012. Aprueban por unanimidad Ley Provincial de Acceso a la Información. Available at: http://fopea.org/Inicio/Aprueban_por_unanimidad_Ley_Provincial_de_Acceso_a_la_Informacion 3 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina. A. 917. XLVI. Asociación de Derechos Civiles v. EN – PAMI – (dto. 1172-03) on amparo Law 16.986. December 4, 2012. Available for consultation at: http://www.cij.gov.ar/nota-10405-La-Corte- Suprema-reconocio-el-derecho-de-los-ciudadanos-de-acceso-a-la-informacion-publica.html; Legal Information Center. News Agency of the Judiciary. December 4, 2012. La Corte Suprema reconoció el derecho de los ciudadanos de acceso a la información pública. Available at: http://www.cij.gov.ar/nota-10405-La-Corte-Suprema-reconocio-el-derecho-de-los-ciudadanos-de-acceso-a-la- informacion-publica.html. See also, La Nación. December 5, 2012. Reconoció la Corte el derecho a acceder a la información pública. Available at: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1533508-reconocio-la-corte-el-derecho-a-acceder-a-la-informacion-publica 4 Republic of Argentina. Decree 1172/2003. Annex VII. General Regulations for Access to Public Information for the National Executive Branch. December 3, 2003. Page 19/26 et seq. Available at: http://www.orsna.gov.ar/pdf/Decreto%201172_2003.pdf 5 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina. A. 917. XLVI. Asociación de Derechos Civiles v. EN – PAMI – (dto. 1172-03) on amparo Law 16.986. December 4, 2012. Pp. 14, 17 and 22. Available for consultation at: http://www.cij.gov.ar/nota- 10405-La-Corte-Suprema-reconocio-el-derecho-de-los-ciudadanos-de-acceso-a-la-informacion-publica.html 9. The Office of the Special Rapporteur also expresses its satisfaction at the conviction by a lower court of Cristián David Espínola Cristaldo for the 2010 murder of Adams Ledesma Valenzuela, of community television channel Mundo Villa TV, which rebroadcasts its programming in Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay. According to the information received, on September 4, the Second Oral Criminal Court convicted Espínola and sentenced him to 18 years in prison for the murder of the Bolivian journalist.6 B.