Journalist found to incur civil liability for defamation following publication on dictatorship-era corruption

Facts

The Committee’s Views in this case mark an important reaffirmation of the role of freedom of expression in transitional justice contexts, particularly regarding journalistic work aimed at uncovering past human rights abuses. By recognising that civil defamation penalties must be proportionate and cannot prevent reporting in the public interest, the Committee clarifies that truth-telling about historical injustice is not only protected speech, but essential to democratic accountability. The case is also significant for affirming that judicial impartiality must be assessed in light of broader historical and institutional contexts. The finding of a violation of article 14 (1) due to the involvement of judges later convicted for complicity in dictatorship-era crimes reflects an evolving understanding of how structural legacies can undermine fair trial guarantees. This decision stands out not only for its substantive findings, but also because Argentina explicitly acknowledged international responsibility before the Committee, a rare gesture that underscores the role of the Committee in supporting accountability and reparations in post-authoritarian societies. In this way, the case contributes to a growing body of jurisprudence that integrates freedom of expression, fair trial, and reparative justice within a transitional human rights framework.

 

The author, Juan Gasparini, is an Argentine investigative journalist, author, and recognised victim of torture under Argentina’s 1985 Truth and Justice programme. He sought asylum in Switzerland in 1980 and has since been based in Geneva, where he was accredited as a journalist by the United Nations in 1988. Known for his reporting on dictatorship-era human rights violations and corruption in Argentina, Gasparini wrote extensively on crimes committed during the country’s last military regime (1976–1983). In 2001, he published the book La delgada línea blanca, in which he reported that there had been a theft of 27 hectares of land belonging to three disappeared individuals in the province of Mendoza, and that this land was subsequently sold for 20 million USD. He alleged that individuals with links to the military dictatorship, including lawyers and government officials, were involved in fraudulent attempts to seize such real estate belonging to victims of enforced disappearance. One such individual mentioned in the book was Federico Gómez Miranda, a deceased lawyer. His son, on seeing the same, reported to the press that the author’s findings were false, and that his father was a true owner of the land in question. The author responded in a press release that Mr. Gómez Miranda was claiming ownership of a property that did not belong to him. In 2006, Mr. Gómez Miranda brought a civil libel suit against the author, alleging that he had impeached his honour, injured his innermost personal rights, and damaged his reputation.

Initially, a court of first instance dismissed the complaint, finding that the author’s journalistic investigation lacked malicious intent. However, in 2011, the Federal Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding the author liable for defamation and ordering him to pay damages in the amount of 50,000 Argentine pesos. Notably, two judges on the appellate bench were later sentenced to life imprisonment for collusion and obstruction in human rights cases concerned with the dictatorship. The author then lodged an extraordinary federal appeal, which also sought recusal of three of the judges on the panel for lack of impartiality. A new composition of the court dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds. The author then appealed to the Supreme Court, which found his appeal inadmissible.

In the present communication, the author alleged violations of article 19 (2) for the disproportionate restriction of his right to freedom of expression, and article 14 (1) for lack of judicial impartiality. He also cited article 2 (3) for the lack of an effective remedy. He requested that the penalty be reviewed, and that the violation he suffered be publicly acknowledged as a form of reparation.

Admissibility

The Committee appreciated the State party’s offer to engage in dialogue with a view to reaching a friendly settlement, the State party’s acceptance of the facts of the communication, and its acknowledgement of international responsibility for violations of the author’s right to freedom of expression under article 19 (2) of the Covenant and the right to a fair trial under article 14 (1). It agreed that the Mendoza Court ruling constituted a disproportionate restriction on the author’s right to freedom of expression under article  19 (2), acknowledging the public interest nature of the reporting, and that the courts failed to weigh the impact on the right to truth and democratic accountability. It also found a violation of article 14 (1), noting that the involvement of appellate judges, who were later criminally convicted for their role in covering up dictatorship-era crimes, compromised the independence and impartiality of the tribunal. The Committee concluded that both violations also engaged the State’s obligation under article 2 (3) to provide an effective remedy.

The Committee considered that the State party’s acknowledgement of the facts and violations of the Covenant made a positive contribution to the consideration of the communication and had considerable material and symbolic value as assurances of non-repetition of similar incidents. Further, it noted that the finding in the case has implications for the right to truth in the collective sense.

Merits

The Committee found the communication admissible in part. The State party did not contest admissibility, and the Committee accepted that domestic remedies had been exhausted, including the dismissal of the extraordinary appeal by the Supreme Court in 2019. The Committee admitted the claims under article 19 (2) and article 14 (1), both read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3). It acknowledged that the author had sufficiently substantiated his claim that the civil judgment for defamation had a chilling effect on his ability to publish investigative work about past abuses, particularly in a transitional justice context where public accountability is essential.

However, the Committee declared inadmissible the author’s claim under article  14 (5), which protects the right to have a criminal conviction reviewed by a higher court. It found the claim incompatible ratione materiae because the defamation case was a civil suit, and not a criminal suit. It also rejected a subsidiary claim regarding the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Court’s dismissal, finding it insufficiently substantiated under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

Recommendations

The State party should:

• (a) review the penalty imposed on the author;
• (b) provide full reparation including adequate compensation for harm suffered; and
• (c) take steps to prevent similar violations in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 19 January 2025