Freedom of Expression

Panama

            242.     During 2003, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression visited the Republic of Panama on two occasions.  His first visit was in April, by invitation of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson of Panama, to participate in the seminar “Freedom of Expression and Democracy.”  On July 6, he returned to Panama for the Regional Forum on Freedom of Expression organized by the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights (IIDH).

 

            243.     On July 8, 2003, the Special Rapporteur released a Report on the Situation of Freedom of Expression in Panama,[1] prepared by the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, and approved by the IACHR, which analyzes the regulations, statutes, and practices that limit the full exercise of freedom of expression in the country.  The document highlights the Special Rapporteur’s concern over the laws on defamation (calumnias and injurias), as well as the desacato laws, which have made it possible, from time to time, for certain individuals to be persecuted, harassed, and/or jailed for expressing their opinions.  In his conclusions, the Special Rapporteur recommended to the government of Panama that it follow through with its commitment to repeal all the laws on desacato, which provide a criminal cause of action to public officials when they feel they have been insulted or dishonored.  He also advocates amending the legislation on defamation (calumnia and injuria) that gives a cause of action where the speech has been directed at public officials, public figures, or private persons who have voluntarily become involved in matters of public interest, and to move towards decriminalizing such conduct.[2]

 

            244.     The Rapporteurship notes that in its response to the report, the State indicated that some of the recommendations would be taken into consideration for possible study and incorporation.  Nonetheless, as of this writing, the Rapporteurship has not seen any progress in this area.

 

            Judicial actions

 

            245.     In its two previous annual reports, the Rapporteurship has noted its concern over the use of trials for defamation (injuria and calumnia) to silence criticism of public figures and public officials.  This concern was reiterated in the Report on the Situation of Freedom of Expression in Panama.  The Rapporteurship recognizes that there have been valuable advances in the case law in the appellate decisions.  Nonetheless, in 2003 some cases persisted in which the defamation and desacato laws were once again invoked.

 

            246.     On February 11, 2003, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the charges brought by a group of workers from the daily La Prensa against the State.  It made that decision in ruling on a motion for cassation against the judgment ordering the State to pay the damages caused by the shut-down and occupation, for 22 days, of the newspaper by units of the Defense Forces in 1988.[3]

 

            247.     On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, Judge Jorge Isaac Escobar ordered the detention, for six days, of television commentator Carlos Zavala.  The order was based on a statement by a witness according to which on Friday, February 14, he had stated on his program that Escobar received money for his decisions.  Zavala went to the National Police on February 21 to turn himself in, but the authorities refused to arrest him, as they had not received notice of the arrest warrant.[4]  On March 7, the Second Court of Justice voided the arrest warrant against the commentator.

 

            248.     On August 1, 2003, journalists Jean Marcel Chéry and Gustavo Aparicio, of the daily El Panamá América, were convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison for the crime of defamation (injuria) to the detriment of current Judge Winston Spadafora, who filed the claim in March 2001, when he was Minister of Interior and Justice.[5]  The ruling, handed down by the Thirteenth Judge for Criminal Matters, Secundino Mendieta, specifies that the penalty is commutable to 60 days' fine at 10 dollars per day.[6]  The judgment was appealed; as of this writing, a ruling on the appeal is still pending.

 

            249.     On October 27, 2003, Peruvian journalist Gustavo Gorriti, who was visiting Panama to give a lecture, was notified of a court decision in a lawsuit against him brought in 1996 by the Attorney General, José Antonio Sossa.  Gorriti had worked as co-editor of the daily La Prensa of Panama City for five years.  Several cases against him are still outstanding.  The prohibition on his leaving the country was lifted on October 30, so Gorriti was able to leave the country.[7]  The Rapporteur requested information on these incidents from the State in a letter dated November 4, 2003, and directed to Minister of Foreign Relations Harmodio Arias Cerjack.  The Rapporteur stated his concern in that communication in relation to the criminal proceedings for defamation (calumnia y injuria), and in relation to the existence of constitutional and legislative provisions that define the crime of desacato and also asked to be kept informed of progress in the debate to decriminalize defamation.  On December 2, the Rapporteurship received a response from the State describing the judicial proceeding that led to the order to block Gorriti’s exit.  In addition, it was reported that as of the date of the writing of the letter, dated November 26, the legislature of Panama has not amended Panama’s criminal laws on defamation.[8]

 

            250.     In May 2003, the Second Court for Criminal Matters convicted and sentenced journalists Blas Julio and Carmen Boyd Marciaq to 25 and 12 months in prison, respectively, for the crime of defamation (calumnia and injuria) to the detriment of the Attorney General of the Nation, José Antonio Sossa.  The proceeding against the two was brought in the wake of the complaint lodged by Attorney General Sossa before the Office of the Auxiliary Prosecutor (Fiscalía Auxiliar) for a series of publications on June 5, 7, 9, and 24, 2000, when they worked at the newspaper El Siglo.  Carmen Boyd was found guilty of injuria, while Blas Julio was also found guilty of both injuria and calumnia.  The court replaced Blas Julio’s prison sentence with a fine of US$3,000, and Carmen Boyd’s with a fine of US$1,500.  Both were disqualified from holding public office for a period equivalent to that of the sentences imposed.[9]  The judgment was appealed and as of this writing there was no news of any ruling on the appeal.

 

            251.     In April 2003, the Eighth Circuit Court affirmed a conviction and prison sentence of 16 months against journalist Marcelino Rodríguez for the crime of injuria to the detriment of the Procuradora de la Administración, Alma Montenegro de Fletcher, but it ruled that the sentence be commuted to a fine of US$1,500.[10]

 

            Detentions

 

            252.     On the afternoon of April 14, 2003, four journalists from La Prensa were detained, according to the authorities, for having crossed the security perimeter of the beach house assigned to the President of the Republic, Mireya Moscoso, at Punta Mala, province of Los Santos.  The journalists detained alleged that they had been outside the presidential residence when, according to a report in the daily La Prensa, agents from the Institutional Protection Service (SPI) ordered them to enter the security perimeter.[11]  The journalists were released after being detained for 26 hours.[12]  On April 15, the doors to the beach house in question were opened to television journalists.

 

            Access to information

 

            253.     The Report on the Situation of Freedom of Expression in Panamahighlights the virtues of Law 6 of January 22, 2002, known as the Law of Transparency.  Nonetheless, this law was overshadowed by Executive Decree 124, adopted on May 21, 2002, according to which the petition for information by an “interested person” (the language used in Article 11 of the law) could only be interpreted to mean the person with a direct personal interest in the information requested.

 

            254.     The Rapporteurship received information in August 2003 on the introduction in the Legislative Assembly of a proposed amendment to the Transparency Law.  The Special Rapporteur values this effort, and as stated in his Report on the Situation of Freedom of Expression in Panama, recommends to the Panamanian State that it adopt domestic legal provisions to bring Panama’s legislation into line with the American Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the inter-American system.

 

            255.     During the year, some refusals by public institutions to provide information of public interest had to be resolved in the courts.

 

            256.     The Human Rights Ombudsperson of Panama, Juan Antonio Tejada, presented several habeas data motions against the Ministers of the Presidency, Ivonne Young; Interior and Justice, Arnulfo Escalona; Commerce and Industry, Joaquín Jácome; and Economy and Finance, Norberto Delgado, requesting that they release information on their payrolls, and on the hiring and appointment of officials and costs of representation,[13] with the aim of publishing it on the web site of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson, known as the Nodo de Transparencia en la Gestión Pública.[14]  The Supreme Court admitted the habeas data actions in February 2003.[15]  In the cases of the Ministers of Economy and Finance and Commerce and Industry, the ministers published their payrolls on the web page of each ministry, and so the Ombudsperson filed motions to dismiss before the Supreme Court.  As for the Ministries of the Presidency and Interior and Justice, the Supreme Court ruled on the habeas data motions in May in favor of Office of the Ombudsperson, and required that both ministries provide the requested information to the Ombudsperson.

 

            257.     On January 28, 2003, La Prensa sought to obtain public documentation on budgetary execution for the first half of 2002 in the areas of purchases of motor vehicles, computers, and office equipment, as well as travel abroad and the payment of the respective per diem.  Fifty public offices were consulted, but only seven delivered the documentation immediately.[16]

 

            258.     On July 16, 2003, the Supreme Court denied a request for information from activist Guillermo Cochez, who requested information on the hiring of a Costa Rican citizen, Anabella Diez de Rodríguez, by the Ministry of the Presidency.  In a vote joined by five of the nine judges, the decision noted the need for there to be a “legitimate interest” to be able to make such a request.[17]

 

            259.     On July 23, 2003, another habeas data action filed by Cochez was ruled on favorably by the Supreme Court.  In a unanimous decision, the habeas data motion filed by Cochez against the Minister of Commerce Joaquín Jácome was ruled on his favor.[18]

 



[1] See report at: <http://www.cidh.org/Relatoria/Spanish/InfPaises/IndicePanama03.htm>.

[2] Idem.

[3] Journalists against Corruption (Periodistas Frente a la Corrupción, PFC), February 12, 2003, www.portal-pfc.org.

[4] Journalists against Corruption (Periodistas Frente a la Corrupción, PFC), February 21, 2003, www.portal-pfc.org.

[5] Journalists against Corruption (Periodistas Frente a la Corrupción, PFC), August 8, 2003, www.portal-pfc.org.

[6] Reporters without Borders, August 11, 2003, www.rsf.fr. ; Inter-American Press Association, August 18, 2003, www.sipiapa.com.

[7] Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), October 30, 2003, www.cpj.org ; Perú 21, November 3, 2003, www.peru21.com.

[8] Communication from the Minister of Foreign Relations of Panama, Harmodio Arias, to the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, November 26, 2003.

[9] Panamá América (Panama), “Juzgado condena a prisión a periodistas”, May 12, 2003, http://www.elpanamaamerica.com.pa, and La Prensa (Panama), “Piden pena máxima para periodistas”, April 2 and 7, 2003, http://www.prensa.com.

[10] El Panamá América, April 10, 2003, www.elpanamaamerica.com.pa.

[11] Journalists against Corruption (Periodistas Frente a la Corrupción, PFC), April 16, 2003, www.portal-pfc.org.

[12] La Prensa(Panama), “Liberan a periodistas”, April 16, 2003, www.prensa.com.

[13] Journalists against Corruption (Periodistas Frente a la Corrupción, PFC), February 12, 2003, www.portal-pfc.org.

[14]See Defensoría del Pueblo de Panamá, http://www.defensoriadelpueblo.gob.pa.

[15] La Prensa (Panama), “Corte admite acciones de hábeas data”, April 7, 2003, www.prensa.com.

[16] La Prensa (Panama), “Gobierno incumple ley de transparencia”, February 4, 2003, www.prensa.com.

[17] Journalists against Corruption (Periodistas Frente a la Corrupción, PFC) July 31, 2003, ww.portal-pfc.org.

[18] Journalists against Corruption (Periodistas Frente a la Corrupción, PFC), August 5, 2003, www.portal-pfc.org.