[Originally published here]
Case: Alessandro Biancardi v. Italy, Application no. 77419/16
Date: July 30, 2020
Court: European Court of Human Rights
Description: Amicus brief filed jointly with the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on a case related to the right to be forgotten in Italy. The Rapporteurs stated that the decision of the Court could have significant effects on media freedom and the right to access information around the world, and it could help reinforce the pre-eminent role of the press in a democratic society to impart ideas and opinions on matters of public interest. They emphasized that the Court’s decision will have a significant impact on the media’s ability to report and rightfully disseminate public information. Particularly strong reasons must be provided for any measure affecting this role of the press and limiting access to information which the public has the right to receive. For the Rapporteurs the case presents the ECtHR with a valuable opportunity to address the ways in which “right to be forgotten” applies to online media outlets and how it should be weighed against the right to disseminate information. In so doing, they urged the Court to take into account the interests of the media and the public in publishing, archiving and accessing news content.
Case: People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Santo Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa, and Rappler, Inc., Criminal Case No. R-MNL-19-01141-C
Date: June 09, 2020
Court: Philippines, Regional Trial Court, Manila Branch 46
Description: The Special Rapporteur filed an amicus brief before a regional court in the Philippines related to a criminal libel suit against two journalists, including internationally renowned journalists Maria Ressa, and the online media outlet Rappler. The Rapporteur argued that journalistic expression, including expression about public and political issues, is especially protected by the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 19 of the ICCPR. In addition, he emphasized that under international law, defamation laws must be narrowly tailored in order to guarantee the rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Criminalizing defamation and using these laws in to deter journalists from acting as a “public watchdog” on government accountability and in providing forums for public debate on matters of public concern is contrary to the intent and purpose of Article 19. For the Rapporteur, online speech is an exercise of freedom of expression protected under Article 19(2), and restriction on online speech should not be more strict or limiting than offline speech.
Case: Amnesty International Togo et al. v. Togo, ECW/CCJ/APP/61/18
Date: January 27, 2020
Court: Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
Description: The Special Rapporteur presented an amicus brief before ECOWAS on a case related to internet shutdowns and website blocking in Togo. The Rapporteur stated that the case presented the Court with the opportunity to reaffirm the basic right of freedom of expression, as the use of Internet shutdowns by States proliferates, within ECOWAS and across the globe. As a general matter, Internet shutdowns perpetrated by any State cannot satisfy the stringent requirements of Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.
Case: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. Turkey, Application no. 25479/19
Date: November 27, 2019
Court: European Court of Human Rights
Description: The Special Rapporteur filed an amicus brief before the ECtHR on a case related to Wikipedia’s shutdown in Turkey. The Rapporteur argued that online censorship through website blocking involves significant threats to freedom of expression and must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR requirements. He stated that the case presents the Court with a valuable opportunity to further address the ways in which online censorship interferes with the right to freedom of expression. In so doing, he urged the Court to take into account the detrimental effects of internet censorship on the effective exercise of rights under Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR. Also, to take into account developments in the law under the ICCPR. Finally, he emphasized that internet censorship is a serious interference with the rights under Article 19 (2) of the ICCPR, and consequently this leads to the application of a strict standard of review in the assessment of the legitimate aim, legality, and necessity and proportionality.
Amicus Brief as filed
Application for leave to file brief amicus curiae
Case: Review process of judgment No. 327 of October 5, 2017, issued by the Second Municipal Court of Apartadó
Date: November 14, 2019
Court: Colombian Constitutional Court
Description: The Special Rapporteur filed an amicus brief before the Colombian Constitutional Court on a defamation case against an indigenous community for their efforts to document security force abuses against them. The Rapporteur argued that that in deciding the case, the Court should consider the heightened protection given to public interest information, which includes information related to human rights violations. He stressed that the main reason for this enhanced protection is that every democracy requires the highest possible degree of public deliberation about public affairs. A democratic and plural system requires that public officials and their work be subject to a high level of scrutiny. Therefore, the authorities must have a greater tolerance towards these expressions, no matter how shocking, unpleasant or disturbing they may be. The Rapporteur highlighted that International human rights law protects individuals and groups, not abstract entities or institutions such as the Army or the Armed Forces that are subject to study, comment or criticism.
Case: Privacy International and Others v. United Kingdom, Application no. 46259/16
Date: September 16, 2019
Court: European Court of Human Rights
Case: Big Brother Watch and Others v. United Kingdom, Application nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15
Date: June 3, 2019
Court: European Court of Human Rights
Case: Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, Application no. 1/16
Date: 21 September 2018
Court: European Court of Human Rights
Case(s): OOO Flavus v. Russia, Application no. 12468/15 and four related Applications (nos. 20159/15, 23489/15, 19074/16 and 61919/16)
Date: Jan 11, 2018
Court: European Court of Human Rights
Case(s): Atilla Taş v. Turkey (no. 72/17); Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey (no. 13252/17) Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey (no. 13237/17) Ahmet Şık v. Turkey (no. 36493/17); Şahin Alpay v. Turkey (no. 16538/17); Mehmet Murat Sabuncu and others v. Turkey (no. 23199/17) Murat Aksoy v. Turkey (no. 80/17); Ayşe Nazli Ilicak v. Turkey (no. 1210/17); Ali Bulaç v. Turkey (no. 25939/17); Ilker Deniz Yucel v. Turkey (no. 27684/17)
Date: Oct 20, 2017
Court: European Court of Human Rights
Case: Case of Nelson Carvajal Carvajal vs. Colombia, case no. 12.462
Date: Aug 9, 2017
Court: Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Case: Application No. 2016Heonma388
Date: May 9, 2017
Court: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea
Third party intervention submission as filed (English)
Third party intervention submission as filed (Korean)
Case: Kidane v. Ethiopia
Date: Oct 31, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Brief of UN Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and the situation of human rights defenders as filed
Motion for leave to file brief amici curiae as filed
Case: Federation of African Journalists et al. v. Gambia, ECW/CCJ/APP/36/15
Date: May 18, 2016
Court: Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
Case: Azerbaijan v. Khadija Rovshan Gizi Ismayilova, App No. 30778/15
Date: Jan 13, 2016
Court: European Court of Human Right