INTER-AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE
WHEREAS
in the second half of 2004, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights handed
down rulings in the cases of Costa Rican journalist Mauricio Herrera and Paraguayan
politician Ricardo Canese
WHEREAS
the legal precedents set in both rulings constitute a milestone in the protection
of freedom of speech and of the press on the American continent
WHEREAS
in the Herrera case, the Court reiterated the importance of an independent press
for a democracy and emphasized that persons who are influential in matters of
the public interest should expect to endure a greater degree of scrutiny and
criticism
WHEREAS
in the same case, the Court limited the Draconian burden of proof required in
the majority of our countries and held that those who faithfully reproduce statements
and information taken from third parties cannot be held liable
WHEREAS
in a concurring opinion, the president of the Court opposes criminalizing the
inevitable wrongs deriving from the exercise of freedom of speech `
WHEREAS
in the ruling in the Canese case, the Court questioned the appropriateness of
the prosecution of the Paraguayan politician
WHEREAS
in the same case, the Court established parameters for broadening democratic
debate beyond the limits set by inadequate laws extant in much of the Continent
WHEREAS
Principle 1 of the Declaration of Chapultepec states: “No people or society
can be free without freedom of expression and of the press. The exercise of
this freedom is not something authorities grant, it is an inalienable right
of the people”
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE IAPA RESOLVES
to disseminate
throughout the Continent the new legal precedents set by the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights so they might serve as a tool for journalists and for
the attorneys who act in their defense
to contact
all the governments of the Continent so they might incorporate into their legal
canons the principles clearly outlined in the rulings of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights
to emphasize
to all governments the advisability of decriminalizing the wrongs that sometimes
accompany the exercise of freedom of speech.
