During the on-site visit to Honduras, the IACHR was concerned by the increase in legal actions related to the exercise of freedom of expression, specifically criminal action for defamation and slander. According to the information received, legal action is used to criminalize and sanction criticism of public officials and matters of public interest, which has disproportionately affected the work of journalists and human rights defenders.
The IACHR and Office of the Special Rapporteur have noted that the use of criminal action as a mechanism of ulterior responsibilities in the face of protected discourse is a violation of freedom of expression protected by Article 13 of the American Convention and Article IV of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. The Commission and the Inter-American Court have pointedly maintained that these types of expressions enjoy a greater protection within the Inter-American System.618 Said protection has been justified, among other reasons, by the importance of maintaining judicial framework that promotes public discourse; in light of the fact that public officials have voluntarily exposed themselves to more social scrutiny and are better equipped to respond to public discourse.619
In fact, in a democratic society entities and public servants of the State are subject to greater scrutiny and criticism, therefore their activities are subject to societal control620. In that regard the Commission has established that “[t]he sort of political debate encouraged by the right to free expression will inevitably generate some speech that is critical of, and even offensive to those who hold public office or are intimately involved in the formation of public policy.”621
According to the information learned, on December 9, 2013 journalist Julio Ernesto Alvarado was convicted by the Supreme Court of Justice Criminal Court [Sala de lo Penal de la Corte Suprema de Justicia] for the crime of “defamation and expressions constituting slander”. He was convicted to one year and four months of incarceration, special ban on the exercise of journalism during the principal portion of the sentence, and civil interdiction during that same time, as well as the corresponding civil penalties. According to the information learned, on April 28, 2014, the Sentencing Execution Judge of the Tegucigalpa Judicial Unit [Juez de Ejecución de las Penas de la Sección Judicial de Tegucigalpa] ruled in favor of commuting the sentence and accompanying sanctions imposed on the journalist. This judgment was partially overturned by the Court of Appeals in September of 2014, stating “revoking the commutation on the accompanying sanctions” (civil interdiction and special ban) of his sentence, and upholding the commutation in the execution of the incarceration portion of the sentence.622In addition, the journalist filed a complaint stating he was a victim of stalking and harassment as a result of orders issued in this case623.
On November 5 2014 the IACHR issued precautionary measures on the matter and requested the State stay the execution of the sentence issued on December 9, 2013, by the Supreme Court of Justice and to abstain from taking any action to ban Julio Ernesto Alvarado from working as a journalist until the IACHR makes a determination on the case lodged by him.624 In spite of the precautionary measures, the IACHR has continued to receive information about actions to enforce the decision disqualifying Julio Ernesto Alvarado from the practice of journalism. Accordingly, and given the IACHR’s on-site visit to Honduras in December 2014, the reiteration of the precautionary measures on October 15, 2015, and a recent working meeting held during its 154th session, the Inter-American Commission has requested compliance with the precautionary measures in order to prevent irreparable harm to the rights of Mr. Julio Ernesto Alvarado to freedom of expression and practicing journalism as a manifestation that cannot be separated from the exercise of this freedom.
The Supreme Court of Justice accepted a case filed against journalist David Romero Ellner by attorney Sonia Inés Gálvez for defamation and libel. David Romer is a journalist for Radio Globo y TV Globo. Gálvez also filed a complaint against Radio Globo and TV Globo journalists Ivis Alvarado, César Silva and Rony Martínez for 15 counts of defamation for alleged expressions on the “Interpretando la Noticia” and “Noticias Radio Globo” programs. The Court did not take the case against the later three journalists.625 Days earlier, Romero Ellner denounced the threats he received after publishing a story stating that Gálvez and her husband, the Deputy Attorney General, were involved in corruption cases in the Office of the Public Prosecutor.626 On September 22, 2014, a judge ordered an oral and public trial after mediation of the dispute failed.627 According to Gálvez, Romero Ellner defamed her because ten years ago she was the prosecutor on the case wherein Romero Ellner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for raping his daughter. Romero Ellner was to appear before the Court on June 11, 2015, but on that day the proceedings were continued because a judge was absent. According to one report, the judges ruled that a continuance would be granted until December or even until 2016 because of case overload. Hours later, the hearing was set for June 18628.
In this context, the IACHR notes with satisfaction the draft bill presented by the Secretary of Justice and Human Rights for Honduras, [Secretaría de Justicia y Derechos Humanos de Honduras], proposing to reform the Criminal Code to decriminalize libel, slander and defamation, following the recommendation of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression to the States in the region found in the 2012 Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights regarding the regulations that punish expression in criminal or civil actions.629 The Inter-American Commission invites the State to move forward with this draft bill, which could contribute to ensuring these cases are heard in civil court, ensuring criminal law is not used as a tool for intimidation which affects freedom of expression, especially when used by public officials to silence criticism.
