Freedom of Expression
Introduction and methodology
1. This chapter describes some aspects related to the situation of freedom of expression in the countries of the Hemisphere. Continuing the tradition of earlier reports, it also contains a table that reflects the number of assassinations of journalists in 2004, the circumstances and presumed motives of these crimes, and the status of the investigations.
2. This year, the Office of the Special Rapporteur has changed the way in which it sets forth the specific situation of each country, starting with the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, prepared by the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression and adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.[1] This change has been introduced because, since its adoption, the Declaration has emerged as a frame of reference for evaluating the possible violations of the freedom of expression in the Member States. Increasingly, the States, civil society organizations, and private persons invoke its principles to assess progress, regression, or possible violations of this right, and undertake possible actions to support this right. This does not mean that in the previous years the Declaration was not considered a guide, but that this year there was an interested in being more explicit in referring to it. Accordingly, the earlier categories of assassinations, threats, detentions, judicial actions, intimidation, censorship, and legislation contrary to the freedom of expression have given way to the categorization of facts reported to the Office of the Special Rapporteur according to the principle to which they are related. Where relevant, positive actions are treated in a separate section on progress, so as to get a clearer view of the countries in which there was progress, such as the adoption of laws for access to information consistent with the Declaration, draft legislation, and judicial decisions favorable to the full exercise of the freedom of expression. The facts that could be related to Principles 10[2] and 11[3] of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression were compiled together, considering that in more than a few cases–and as the Office of the Special Rapporteur has indicated–defamation laws are generally invoked for the same purposes as desacato laws.[4]
3. This chapter reflects information corresponding to 2004. The Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression receives information from various sources[5] that describes the situation related to the freedom of expression in the States of the Hemisphere. Once the information is received, and mindful of the importance of the matter, it is analyzed and checked. Once this task is completed, it is grouped based on the principles, and the Office of the Special Rapporteur, for the purposes of this Report, reduces the information to a series of emblematic examples to reflect the situation of each country in relation to respect for and the exercise of the freedom of expression. In most of the cases cited, the sources of the information are given. The omission of some states indicates that no information has been received; their omission should be interpreted only in this light.
4. Finally, the Office of the Special Rapporteur would like to thank each of the States and civil society in the Americas as a whole for sending information on the situation of the freedom of expression. The Office of the Special Rapporteur urges them to continue and expand on these practices for the benefit of future reports.
[1] The idea of developing a Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression was born out of recognition of the need to set forth a legal framework to regulate the effective protection of the freedom of expression in the Hemisphere, incorporating the leading doctrines recognized in the various international instruments. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights approved the Declaration prepared by the Office of the Special Rapporteur during its 108th session in October 2000. That declaration is fundamental for interpreting Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Its approval is not only an acknowledgement of the importance of protecting the freedom of expression in the Americas, but it also incorporates into the inter-American system the international standards for the more effective exercise of this right (see http://www.cidh.oas.org/relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=25&lID=1).
[2] Principle 10. Privacy laws should not inhibit or restrict investigation and dissemination of information of public interest. The protection of a person’s reputation should only be guaranteed through civil sanctions in those cases in which the person offended is a public official, a public person or a private person who has voluntarily become involved in matters of public interest. In addition, in these cases, it must be proven that in disseminating the news, the social communicator had the specific intent to inflict harm, was fully aware that false news was disseminated, or acted with gross negligence in efforts to determine the truth or falsity of such news.
[3] Principle 11. Public officials are subject to greater scrutiny by society. Laws that penalize offensive expressions directed at public officials, generally known as "desacato laws," restrict freedom of expression and the right to information.
[4] IACHR, Annual Report 2002, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.117, Doc. 5 rev. 1, March 7, 2003, Vol. III, Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Chapter V.
[5] The Office of the Special Rapporteur receives information sent by independent human rights organizations and organizations for the defense and protection of the freedom of expression, independent journalists directly affected, and information request by the Office of the Special Rapporteur of the representatives of the Member States of the OAS, among others.