Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world.  It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments  in the field.

The right to peaceful assembly is at stake globally. “People who lack political and economic power have only protests as a tool to communicate their legitimate concerns,” the Constitutional Court of South Africa put it firmly in Mlungwana v. The State. “To take away that tool would undermine the promise in the Constitution’s preamble that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, and not only a powerful elite.”

This week, we are turning to Latin America. Last Wednesday – as every Wednesday for months – retirees rallied peacefully, demanding higher pensions and better healthcare in front of the National Congress in Buenos Aires. Under the so-called “Anti-Picket Protocol,” security forces violently suppressed the protest, detaining approximately 120 people and injuring many, including photojournalist Pablo Grillo, who remains in critical condition.

The next day, a first-instance judge ordered the release of 114 detainees, citing the protection of the right to protest and freedom of expression and ruling that the arrests were arbitrary. The Ministry of Security responded by filing a criminal complaint against the judge for malfeasance, breach of public duty as a public official, and cover-up, arguing that the decision was ideologically driven.

The UN Human Rights Office for South America expressed concern over the indiscriminate use of force, emphasizing that the existence of some acts of violence does not justify the use of force against all protesters. The Center for Justice and International Law warned that the “Anti-Picket Protocol” is incompatible with international human rights standards that protect the right to peaceful protest. More than 50 civil society organizations issued a statement asserting that the Argentine government has utilized repression and criminalization of social protests to intimidate and silence dissenting voices.

In the Dominican Republic on March 8, police forces violently attempted to repress a peaceful demonstration advocating for gender equality and women’s rights. Interrupting the performance of a song in Spanish with a traditional Dominican rhythm, the officers said: “They’re not going to give me a Haitian concert. If they’re going to sing to me, they’re not going to sing to me in Creole.”

Writing about the incident in an op-ed for El Mitin, CGFoE’s Senior Legal and Policy Advisor Anderson Dirocie examines the government’s endorsement of police actions, particularly the statements by Minister Faride Raful, who justified the need to protect ‘‘sacred’’ public spaces. The op-ed highlights the broader implications of state-sanctioned repression against marginalized voices and calls for accountability in the protection of fundamental freedoms. Read the translated article in English or its original version in Spanish.

We have more on the rights of women, girls, and adolescents this week. In Susana v. Nicaragua and Norma v. Ecuador, the UN Human Rights Committee “established a pioneering standard in international human rights law,” said Lautaro Furfaro, Senior Legal Researcher at CGFoE. “By recognizing that the denial of access to information on sexual and reproductive health for girls and adolescents amounts to a violation of their right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR, these decisions carry substantial implications for the 173 State Parties to the treaty.”

As Judge Daniela Salazar Marín concludes her tenure on Ecuador’s Constitutional Court, we acknowledge her contributions to constitutional law and international human rights, particularly in the area of freedom of expression.

Since her appointment in 2019, during which she also served as Vice President of the Court (2019–2022), Judge Salazar Marín has played a pivotal role in shaping legal standards that safeguard fundamental rights. Beyond the bench, her academic work and engagement with international legal frameworks have strengthened the development of legal discourse on free speech and highlighted the impact of the criminalization of social protest on the exercise of this right.

CGFoE has had the privilege of collaborating with Judge Salazar Marín, notably through her participation in discussions on global norms on freedom of expression. As she embarks on the next chapter of her career, we express our deepest appreciation for her dedication and wish her success in all future endeavors.

Germany
Democracy Reporting International v. Twitter
Decision Date: February 7, 2025
The Berlin Regional Court II granted a preliminary injunction ordering X (formerly Twitter) to provide Democracy Reporting International (DRI) unrestricted access to publicly available data on its platform. The case arose after X repeatedly denied DRI’s requests to access research data in advance of the Bundestag (Parliament) elections held on February 23, 2025, despite the organization meeting the eligibility criteria under Article 40(12) of the Digital Services Act (DSA). Given the urgency of the electoral context, DRI argued that further delays would undermine its research and the transparency of online political communication. The Court found that X’s refusal to provide access posed a concrete risk to DRI’s research, particularly as the elections were imminent. It ruled that the urgency of the matter justified injunctive relief under the German Code of Civil Procedure, as waiting for a final ruling would render the right to access the data ineffective. Accordingly, the Court ordered X to grant DRI immediate access to the requested data until February 25, 2025 – thus ensuring that the organization could continue monitoring political discourse and disinformation trends during the electoral period.

CGFoE thanks Erik Tuchtfeld, Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, Germany, for his help with the case analysis.

United Nations Human Rights Committee
Susana v. Nicaragua
Decision Date: January 17, 2025
The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Nicaragua violated the petitioner’s right to freedom of expression—specifically her right to access information as protected under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—by failing to provide her with essential information on reproductive health and rights. The case was brought by Susana, a survivor of sexual violence who became pregnant at the age of 13 as a result of repeated abuse by her grandfather. She argued that the State’s failure to guarantee access to accurate and evidence-based information on sexual and reproductive health, her rights during pregnancy, and available options—including adoption—led to forced motherhood and exacerbated her vulnerability. Despite multiple requests from the Committee, Nicaragua failed to respond to the complaint or provide any defense. The Committee reaffirmed that the right to access information encompasses the State’s obligation to provide comprehensive and reliable information on sexual and reproductive rights, particularly for girls and adolescents in vulnerable situations. It concluded that the absence of such information prevented the applicant from making informed decisions about her body and future, violating Article 19 of the ICCPR. Based on these findings, the Committee ordered Nicaragua to provide Susana with an effective remedy, including full reparation and adequate compensation for the harm suffered. Additionally, it urged the State to reform its legal framework to ensure access to reproductive health services, train healthcare professionals and justice operators on handling cases of sexual violence, and develop policies to prevent future violations.

Norma v. Ecuador
Decision Date: January 17, 2025
The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Ecuador violated the petitioner’s right to freedom of expression—specifically her right to access information as protected by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—by failing to provide her with essential information on reproductive health and rights. The case was brought by Norma, a survivor of sexual violence who became pregnant at the age of 13 as a result of repeated abuse by her father. She argued that the State’s failure to guarantee access to accurate and evidence-based information on sexual and reproductive health, her rights during pregnancy, and available options—including abortion and adoption—, led her to forced motherhood and exacerbated her vulnerability.  For its part, Ecuador, in its response to Norma’s communication, did not present substantial arguments in relation to the alleged violation of the right to access information. The Committee reaffirmed that the right to access information encompasses the State’s obligation to provide comprehensive and reliable information on sexual and reproductive rights, particularly for girls and adolescents in vulnerable situations. It concluded that the absence of such information prevented the applicant from making informed decisions about her body and future, violating Article 19 of the ICCPR. Based on these findings, the Committee ordered Ecuador to provide Norma with an effective remedy, including full reparation and adequate compensation for the harm suffered. Additionally, it urged the State to reform its legal framework to ensure access to reproductive health services, train healthcare professionals and justice operators on handling cases of sexual violence, and develop policies to prevent future violations.

● CoE Adopts International Convention on Protecting Lawyers. The Council of Europe (CoE) adopted the Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer – the first international treaty that responds to reports of threats and attacks on lawyers’ professional practice. Among the issues the Convention covers are professional associations, entitlement to practice, professional rights, freedom of expression, discipline, and protective measures. Article 9 states that parties shall ensure that lawyers and their associations can exercise their rights “without being the target of: i. any form of physical attack, threat, harassment or intimidation; or ii. any improper hindrance or interference.” On May 13, the Convention will be opened for signature; for it to enter into force, at least eight states, including six CoE members, must ratify the treaty.

● Perú: International Organizations Condemn New Peruvian Law that Limits and Censors the Activities of Civil Society Organizations. The Center for Justice and International Law, Due Process of Law Foundation, and Washington Office on Latin America condemn the law targeting civil society organizations passed by the Peruvian Congress on March 12. The law grants broad powers to the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation, a state body, effectively turning it into the agency of control and sanction over NGOs, stripping the latter of independence under the pretense of increasing transparency. According to the new law, a “very serious offense” is the alleged “‘improper use’ of aid funds when these are used to provide counsel, assistance or financing for administrative, judicial or other actions, at national or international level, against the Peruvian State.” The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, UN agencies, and several states have rejected the law on grounds that it violates international human rights standards and could be used to undermine civic space.

● Latin American Independent Media Propose Strengthening Collaboration and Vigilance in the Face of Trump’s Effects on the Region. The LatAm Journalism Review features the editorial titled, “Blooming in the Mud: The Journalism Latin America Needs in the Face of Trump,” published by Ojo Público, based in Perú, on March 17. 20 media outlets – from México, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil – call on journalists in the region to strengthen collaborative networks as the decisions of the Trump administration sow chaos and impact regional politics, climate, migration, and most vulnerable communities. The media outlets set out to stand by journalism “that avoids reactivity and catastrophizing, […] that anchors itself with a genuine commitment to reality, which will always be more complex and nuanced.”

This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers

On Mute: The Impact of Online Violence Against Women Journalists. Amnesty International published the English translation of its report, originally released in Spanish, on online gender-based violence against journalists in Argentina. The study documents digital violence targeting gender-diverse and women journalists from 2018 until 2024, evaluating the effect on freedom of expression in the country. Based on 36 interviews and 403 survey responses, the report found that almost two-thirds, or 63.5%, of the respondents had experienced digital violence in the past six years. Isolated attacks or insults make up 98.3% of the cases, followed by harassment or trolling, sexual harassment or threats of sexual violence, and threats of physical violence. In more than half of the cases, coverage of abortion was the trigger, followed by reporting on femicides, gender-based violence, and human rights. Almost half of the respondents said they self-censored on social media. For more on online gender-based violence against journalists, revisit Dávila v. National Electoral Council, a landmark decision from the Colombian Constitutional Court.

● Stop Censoring Abortion: The Fight for Reproductive Rights in the Digital Age, by Rindala Alajaji. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sounds the alarm over restrictions of access to vital information on reproductive health in the US and globally as social media platforms increase censorship or removal of content related to abortion. Together with the Repro Uncensored coalition, EFF launched the #StopCensoringAbortion campaign. Learn more here.

● Call for Submissions on the Summit on Human Rights and the Impact of Disinformation. Ahead of the upcoming Summit, the South African Human Rights Commission invites scholars, civil society representatives, media professionals, and policymakers, among others, to submit research papers, opinion pieces, commentaries, or short case studies on the impact of disinformation on human rights. Send your contribution by April 3. More details are here.

This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression.  For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.