SU-141/20
Balance of victim protection and journalists? freedoms of press, speech, and expression
Maria Camila Orozco Becerra & others v. 22nd Municipal Criminal Court of Bogotá - Guarantee Control Judge & another
Date: 05/07/2019
Judge-Rapporteur: Carlos Libardo Bernal Pulido
Dissent: Alejandro Linares Cantillo. José Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Facts. Several journalists filed legal action against the judicial decision that prohibited them to attend the first hearing of the criminal case against the Warden of La Modelo prison of Bogotá, who was charged with several corruption offenses. The decision was based on the need to protect the victims and guarantee the proper course and success of the investigation. The actors alleged that such an impediment violated their freedom of expression, speech, and press, as well as their rights to due process and work. They claimed that the prohibition was not duly motivated, ignored the judicial precedent, and was based on an unsystematic interpretation of the principle of publicity in criminal matters. Consequently, they requested authorization to enter the preliminary hearings that would take place in the said process and, in general, in all criminal proceedings, except for those in which confidentiality is provided by law.
Issue: Does prohibit the entrance of journalists to a court hearing based on the need to protect the victims and the due advancement of the criminal procedure ignores the freedoms of press, speech, and expression?
Ruling and reasoning. No, provided that due balance between those freedoms and the rights of intervening parties such as victims, witnesses, minors, etc., is duly considered and other alternatives to satisfy mentioned freedoms are taken into account too. Although the Court DISMISSED THE ACTION due to lack of judicial purpose because the damage was already done, cause the hearings already passed without the plaintiff’s attendance, it ruled on the criteria that the guarantee control judges must follow when deciding on the strict confidentiality of first hearings. It warned that the judges must make a balance between the freedoms of expression, speech, and press and the rights of the intervening parties, victims, witnesses and minors, as well the best interest for the trial procedures. It was also indicated that when carrying out this weighting, the judge must consider the adoption of suitable alternative measures to satisfy the freedoms of expression, speech, and press.
|