European Court of Human Rights
Harutyunyan v. Armenia
Decision Date: August 27, 2024
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously held that Armenia violated Mr. Hrachya Harutyunyan’s right to freedom of expression since domestic courts convicted him of defamation after he filed a whistleblower report exposing corruption. The case originated when Mr. Harutyunyan, former Head of Security and Administration at Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA), submitted a confidential report through ENA’s designated internal whistleblower channel, denouncing corruption and misuse of resources by a colleague. Despite ENA’s assurances of confidentiality, the report was circulated between ENA officials and was presented to the party accused of corruption. As a result, the accused party sued Mr. Harutyunyan for defamation and insult before domestic courts, claiming that the report damaged his professional reputation. The domestic courts classified the report as a “public” statement, ruling that its circulation within ENA, where individuals beyond the Board of Directors accessed it, amounted to publication and therefore could not be considered confidential. National courts held Mr. Harutyunyan liable for defamation, ordering him to pay damages, which led to the seizure of his assets. After exhausting domestic remedies, Mr. Harutyunyan brought the case before the ECtHR, arguing that the Armenian courts’ treatment of his confidential report disregarded his role as a whistleblower on matters of public interest. The ECtHR found that Armenia failed to balance the applicant’s freedom of expression with the reputational concerns of others, and emphasized the public significance of reporting corruption. Concluding that the Armenian courts’ approach was neither necessary nor proportionate, the Court determined that restricting the applicant’s freedom of expression could have a chilling effect on internal whistleblowing—undermining democratic accountability and public-interest protections.

United Nations Human Rights Committee
Gasparini v. Argentina
Decision Date: August 12, 2024
The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) held that Argentina violated Juan Gasparini’s right to freedom of expression after domestic courts sentenced him to pay civil damages for defamation for his investigative journalism on the appropriation of property by the military during Argentina’s last dictatorship. In 2000, Gasparini published a book denouncing fraudulent property transfers involving members of the Argentinian military during the dictatorship. In response, Federico Gómez Miranda, the son of a disappeared person, filed a defamation lawsuit against Gasparini claiming that one of the properties mentioned in the book had been legally acquired by his father. Argentinian domestic courts ruled against Gasparini and ordered him to pay compensation after determining that his statements in a book, and subsequent article, defamed Federico Gómez Miranda, as they were perceived to harm both the personal honor and the public reputation of Gómez Miranda and his late father. Considering this, Gasparini lodged a communication before the UNHRC, arguing that the compensation he was ordered to pay violated his right to freedom of expression by inhibiting his work as an investigative journalist on matters of public interest. For its part, Argentina acknowledged its international responsibility and admitted that the national courts’ decisions were disproportionate. Thus, they violated Gasparini’s freedom of expression and failed to protect public interest information. The Committee accepted Argentina’s acknowledgment of responsibility and considered it a positive step towards resolving the dispute. It also found that the domestic judgments, ordering Gasparini to pay damages for defamation after publishing a book about a matter of great public interest, violated Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The UNHRC ordered Argentina to review the sanction, provide adequate compensation to the journalist, and take measures to prevent future violations.

Marques v. Angola
Decision Date: March 9, 2005
The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) held that Angola violated the right to freedom of expression of a journalist, under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by arresting, detaining, and sentencing him for criticizing the then-president of Angola, José Eduardo dos Santos. The petitioner, journalist Rafael Marques de Morais, was arrested and charged with defamation and libel after publishing several articles—and giving a radio interview—in which he accused dos Santos of corruption and destroying the country. After being arrested, Angolan courts convicted Marques of defamation and ordered him to pay a fine and compensation in favor of José Eduardo dos Santos, considering that his expressions were not protected by his constitutional right to freedom of expression, as this right was limited by the president’s right to honor and reputation. The UNHRC repeatedly requested Angola to provide observations about Marques’ communication to the Committee but received no response. Noting the State’s failure to cooperate, it gave due weight to the petitioner’s claims. In its decision, the UNHRC found that the restrictions against Marques’ freedom of expression were neither necessary nor proportionate. The Committee emphasized the critical role of freedom of expression in a democratic society and reiterated that public figures, such as the President, must be open to criticism. Given these findings, the UNHRC concluded that the sanctions imposed on Marques, including his imprisonment and fines, were disproportionate and violated his right to freedom of expression.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Case of Vladimir Kovačević
Decision Date: July 11, 2024
The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina held that republishing a defamatory article was not a violation of the right to freedom of expression as the victim had already received compensation for the injury to their honor and reputation. Two news outlets republished a tabloid article which alleged that a journalist was involved in a coup against the government of Republika Srpska. The journalist sued both news outlets separately, succeeding in the first case. The Constitutional Court found that it would be unjustified for a victim to get compensation twice for the publication of the same content and that it would hamper press freedom.

● Belarus: Over Four Years, More than 1,200 People Have Been Convicted of “Slandering” and “Insulting” Lukashenka. As the next presidential election in Belarus approaches, Human Rights Center “Viasna” reports that over the last four years – Aliaksandr Lukashenka’s sixth term as President – more than 1,200 people faced convictions for defaming him. Trials for “insulting” the President under Article 368 of the Criminal Code amounted to at least 963; in 514 cases, people received sentences to imprisonment in penal colonies. Trials for “slandering” Lukashenka under Article 367 of the Criminal Code involved at least 263 people, and 149 of them ended up with sentences to imprisonment in general security or medium security penal colonies. Viasna notes that most cases concern comments on social media, while some are based on stand-up performances, a poster, a Chatroulette conversation, or an entry in a guestbook at a gas station. Viasna calls for the decriminalization of defamation in Belarus.

● Hong Kong: New Report on The “Glory to Hong Kong” Injunction Saga and Hong Kong’s Compromised Judiciary, by Eric Yan-ho Lai, Lok-man Tsui, and Thomas E. Kellogg. The report, published by the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, analyzes the Hong Kong government’s new crackdown tactic: pressuring Western tech companies to censor the 2019 pro-democracy anthem “Glory to Hong Kong.” Following the Introduction, the report’s Section 2 looks at what preceded the injunction. Section 3 unpacks the First-Instance Court’s decision, which rejected the government’s request for an injunction – “a rare loss in a national security case.” Section 4 analyzes the Appellate Court’s judgment, which overruled the earlier decision and granted an injunction. Section 5 examines what the case entails for tech companies. The authors conclude with questions: “[W]ill the Hong Kong government stop here?” Or will it expand the internet censorship efforts by turning to more civil injunctions and other tools? Learn more about the authors and the report.

● Pakistan: IBAHRI Concerned by Violent Crackdown against Protesters. The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) expresses concern over the brutal crackdown on protesters in Islamabad, Pakistan, and repeated violations of the freedom of peaceful assembly in the country. In late November, the opposition party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) led protests demanding the release of Imran Khan, former prime minister and party leader, now imprisoned. Despite the imposed power outage and roadblocks, protesters reached the heart of Islamabad, where violent clashes with the police took place. The PTI reported that 12 protesters died; the officials claimed that the demonstrators killed four members of the security forces, one policeman, and one civilian. IBAHRI Co-Chair Anne Ramberg Dr Jur hc recalled Pakistan’s constitutional and international commitments and urged the authorities to “respect, protect and fulfill, without discrimination, the rights of all persons to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, as well as the right to life.”

A 2024 Report on SLAPPs in Europe: Mapping Trends and Cases. The third edition of the overview report on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in Europe indicates a clear trend: SLAPPs continue to proliferate on the continent. Prepared jointly by the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation and the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), the report refers to a total of 1,049 SLAPP cases between 2010 and 2023. The authors note, however, that the numbers do not represent an exhaustive survey and are likely only the “tip of the iceberg.” For now, the number of SLAPPs identified in Europe in 2023 alone is 166, and many were initiated in Italy, Romania, Serbia, and Türkiye. In total, SLAPPs were filed in 41 countries across the continent, and the report lists some countries for the first time, like Monaco, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, and Denmark. 36% of the 2023 SLAPP cases were related to corruption, and 16% concerned environmental issues. Journalists are still targeted more often than any other public watchdogs, while Europe’s rich and powerful are still the most frequent SLAPPers: businesses and business people initiated almost half of the 2023 cases, and politicians filed over a third of them.

● ChatGPT, Can You Solve the Content Moderation Dilemma? by Emmanuel Vargas Penagos. The article, published in the International Journal of Law and Information Technology, tests the applicability of large language models (LLMs) for online content moderation. Emmanuel Vargas Penagos, Co-Founder of El Veinte, a freedom of expression organization based in Colombia, asks: What human rights challenges for public debate participation arise from LLMs used in content moderation? Framed within the EU law, the article explains the rationale for content moderation, summarizes the results of earlier tests of LLMs, and unpacks the outcome of a test carried out on ChatGPT and OpenAI’s “GPTs” service, concluding with the human rights challenges identified. 

● Threatening Dynamics on Internet Governance: the Case of Europe and the Digital Services Act (DSA), by Joan Barata. Writing for the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE), Joan Barata, Senior Legal Fellow at The Future of Free Speech, argues that the DSA, even while being “an overall positive regulatory step forward,” might impact users’ content in “non-properly accountable ways.” Barata examines several DSA sections that could provide for potential informal regulatory pressures: Articles 9 (on orders to act against illegal content), 13 (on legal representatives), 14 (​​on terms and conditions), 22 (on trusted flaggers), 34 (on risk assessment), 35 (on mitigation of risks), and 36 (on crisis response mechanism). The article is also available in Spanish.