The case Herrera vs. Costa Rica was anonymously decided by the Inter-American Court of Human

Rights on July 2, 2004.

Why is the case important?

The judgment is relevant for defining the importance of the freedom of expression for

a democratic society and possible forms of state limitations that could have a chilling

effect on journalism.

It further stresses the distinction between limitations protecting individuals and those

protecting public officials.

Principle facts.

The applicant, Mr. Herrera Ulloa, has worked as a journalist for a Costa Rican newspaper.

He published seven articles which referred to reports published in four Belgian newspapers.

The reports attributed certain illegal acts to a then Costa Rican ambassador.

The newspaper and the journalist regarded the contents as meeting the public interests

of the Costa Rican society.

Before publishing the articles, they checked the reliability of the sources and reviewed

the facts by following the routine procedure.

In reaction to the articles, the ambassador lodged two criminal complaints against the

applicant for the crimes of defamation, columnary and publications of offenses.

At first instance, the applicant was acquitted.

The ambassador then appealed against the judgment and the third chamber of the Supreme Court

vacated the acquittal.

The criminal court of the first judicial circuit delivered a verdict convicting the applicant.

The judge ruled that the applicant's justification defense except your veritatis had to be disregarded

since he had failed to prove that the facts that various European newspapers attributed

to the ambassador were true.

The applicant appealed but his appeal was denied.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

Moreover, the applicant's name was entered into judiciary's record of convicted felons.

The applicant alleged that the state of Costa Rica infringed his right to freedom of expression

in the form of positive action, prosecution, conviction, criminal penalty and civil liability.

The court's finding.

On the one hand, the court illustrates that the media plays an essential role as vehicles

for the exercise of the social dimension of freedom of expression in a democratic society.

Within this context, journalism is the primary and principal manifestation of freedom of

expression and thought.

Journalists who work in the media should enjoy the necessary protection and independence

to exercise their function to the fullest.

On the other hand, freedom of expression is not an absolute right.

In order to restrict the freedom of expression and subject abuses thereof to subsequent liability,

the state must fulfill the requirements of Article 13 of the American Convention on Human

Rights.

The court finds that there should be a limited margin of appreciation for any restriction

when it comes to political debates or debates on matters of public interest.

Additionally, it quotes the European Court of Human Rights that held that punishment

of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person would

seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussions on matters of public interest.

Therefore, statements concerning public officials should be accorded a certain latitude in the

broad debate on matters of public interest that is essential for the functioning of a

truly democratic system.

This does not signify that the honor of public officials should not be legally protected,