OAS » IACHR » Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression » Panama

Freedom of Expression

Panama

Judicial actions

 

186.  In its 2001 Annual Report, the Office of the Special Rapporteur expressed its concern about the use of defamation and libel suits in Panama to silence criticisms made by some journalists and media outlets about the activities of government officials and other public persons.  In response to these criticisms and those of domestic and international NGOs, the Defensoria del Pueblo of Panama created a Special Delegate on Freedom of Expression with the objective of bringing Panamanian laws on freedom of expression into line with international human rights standards.  As a first step toward this goal, the Special Delegate produced a report to analyze the scope of this problem.  The report includes a detailed listing of criminal libel and slander proceedings instituted against journalists and others who express themselves through the media since 1995.[i]  According to the report, there have been 90 cases for criminal defamation or libel since 1995; 78 of these were against journalists, social communicators, or media collaborators.[ii]  Of the 90 total cases, there have been guilty verdicts in 13, absolutions in 6, stays (sobreseimientos) in 23, and in 5 cases the complainant ceased pursuing the case (desistiminientos).  47 of these cases were presented by public officials.  In 2002, 17 cases were initiated.[iii]  These statistics show a clear pattern of the use of defamation and libel laws to silence criticism of the administration of public affairs.

 

187.  The Office of the Special Rapporteur has been following some cases in particular, receiving information from a variety of sources. 

 

188.  On May 23, 2002, independent journalist Miguel Antonio Bernal was absolved of criminal charges of libel and slander by the Juzgado Decimo de Cicuito de lo Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de la Provincia de Panama.  The case against Mr. Bernal was initiated on May 16, 2001by José Luis Sosa, who was then the director general of the National Police.  Mr. Sosa accused Mr. Bernal of having affected “the honor and dignity of a public institution, namely the National Police” when he reported on the decapitation of four prisoners who had attempted to escape from the penitentiary on Coiba island.[iv]  The State appealed the judgment absolving Mr. Bernal.  On October 25, 2002, the Second Superior Tribunal of the First Judicial District (Segundo Tribunal Superior del Primer Distrito Judicial) affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance absolving Miguel Antonio Bernal of the crime of libel and slander.[v]

 

189.  On June 7, 2002, cartoonist Victor Ramos of La Prensa was ordered to appear in court on charges of damaging the reputation of former president Ernesto Pérez Balladares in a cartoon he had published in April.  The cartoon listed a number of scandals that had been linked to Pérez Balladares throughout his political career.  The case is currently in the investigation stage.[vi]

 

190.  On July 1, 2002, Ubaldo Davis, publisher and editor of the weekly La Cascara News, was found guilty of criminal defamation and sentenced to 14 months in prison, which could be substituted with a $1,500 fine if paid within 90 days of the execution of the judgment.[vii]  This case is one that was reported by the Office of the Special Rapporteur in its 2001 Annual Report.[viii]  On September 20, 2001, Ubaldo Davis and a colleague, Herbert Rattry, were arrested for publishing humorous material alluding to the private life of President Mireya Moscoso and other public officials.  The next day, Joel Díaz, another journalist on the weekly, was also arrested.  President Moscoso and one of the officials filed suit against the three journalists for “defamation and libel” and for “attacking the juridical security of the state.”[ix]  The charges were dismissed against Mr. Díaz.  The Office of the Special Rapporteur has received no additional information about the charges against Mr. Rattry.  Mr. Davis is currently appealing the conviction against him.[x]

 

191.  On November 26, 2002, Julio César Aizprúa and Rafael Pérez, two journalists with La Prensa, were ordered to appear for questioning at the Fiscalia Septima del Primer Circuito Judicial in relation to an article they had published in February 2002.  In the article, the journalists exposed alleged irregularities committed by the company Naves Supply in the handling of international refuse.  They claimed that the company delivers large quantities of refuse from foreign sources to Panamanian ports daily.  They further claimed that the refuse is mainly composed of manure, animal urine, food scraps, and rotten fruits and vegetables.  On November 28, 2002, asked the Juzgado Duodecima de Circuito Penal to open judicial proceedings against the journalists for crimes against the honor of the company (solicita llamamiento a juicio).[xi]

 

Access to information

 

192.  In its 2001 Annual Report, the Office of the Special Rapporteur expressed its satisfaction with the initiative taken by the Panamanian government in promulgating the Law on Transparency in the Public Administration on January 22, 2002, which guarantees the right of any person to obtain public information.  In welcoming this initiative, the Office noted that access to information held by the state is a vital tool in building transparent public administrations.[xii]  Since that time, however, the Office has received information about a number of actions taken by the Panamanian State that would limit the positive effects of this law. 

 

193.  On May 21, 2002, the Executive promulgated Regulating Decree (Decreto Reglamentario) 124, which regulates the Law on Transparency in Public Administration.  Many individuals and organization have expressed concern about these regulations, considering that they contravene the purpose and spirit of the Law on Transparency.  On August 9, 2002, the Office of the Defensor del Pueblo presented a demand to declare null Articles 4,5,8,9, and 14 of the Decree.[xiii]  The Special Rapporteur expressed his concern about Article in particular in a letter to the Panamanian government on July 9, 2002, in which he requested information about this and other situations affecting freedom of expression in Panama.  Article 8 of the Decree interprets the phrase "interested person" as used in Article 11 of the Law on Transparency to mean "a person who has a direct relationship with the information solicited." Due to the lack of a response from the Panamanian government, the Special Rapporteur sent a second letter reiterating the request for information on November 4, 2002. The Government of Panama informed the Office of the Special Rapporteur that they are preparing a response.

 

194.  The Office of the Special Rapporteur has also received information about a number of judicial decisions in cases of appeals of denials of requests for information.  According to the information received, of 65 requests for information, only 10 cases resulted in favorable decisions.[xiv] Among the decisions that were denied was a decision on October 22, 2002 in a case submitted by attorney Guillermo Cochez to the Supreme Court of Justice.  Mr. Cochez had requested information relating to all trips taken by President Mireya Moscoso, a request that was rejected by a minister to the President.  The Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Cochez, agreeing with the minister's argument that he had not shown that he was an "interested person" within the terms of the Law on Transparency.[xv]

 

Other

 

195.  According to the information received, journalist Blas Julio has suffered more than 10 medical crises as a result of high blood pressure since his arrest and incarceration in the La Joya facility for alleged extortion against the owner of the Colón Abdul Waked Free Trade Zone on 21 de mayo de 2002.  For humanitarian reasons, the former Ombudsman (defensor del pueblo), Italo Antinori-Bolaños, requested that journalist Blas Julio Rodríguez be transferred to a penitentiary such as El Renacer, which would be less dangerous to his health and safety.  Without entering into the nature of the arrest, Antinori-Bolaños believed that Blas Julio should be treated with the dignity due to any person and that his physical safety needed to be protected.  Also, according to the information provided, all of the country's television stations showed Blas Julio being led by the police through the streets to the Office of the Attorney General in handcuffs and shackles on the feet.  The Ombudsman of Panama denounced this act of degradation as a human rights violation.[xvi]

1889 F St. N.W. Washington, DC, U.S.A. 20006 / E-mail: [email protected] / Phone: (202) 370-9000 / Fax: (202) 458-3650