Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) held that Argentina violated Juan Gasparini’s right to freedom of expression after domestic courts sentenced him to pay civil damages for defamation for his investigative journalism on the appropriation of property by the military during Argentina’s last dictatorship. In 2000, Gasparini published a book exposing fraudulent property transfers involving members of the Argentinian military during the dictatorship. In response, Federico Gómez Miranda, the son of a disappeared person, filed a defamation lawsuit against Gasparini claiming that one of the properties mentioned in the book had been legally acquired by his father. Argentinian domestic courts ruled against Gasparini and ordered him to pay compensation after determining that his statements in a book, and subsequent article, defamed Federico Gómez Miranda, as they were perceived to harm both the personal honor and the public reputation of Gómez Miranda and his late father. Considering this, Gasparini lodged a communication before the UNHRC, arguing that the compensation he was ordered to pay violated his right to freedom of expression by inhibiting his work as an investigative journalist on matters of public interest. For its part, Argentina acknowledged its international responsibility and admitted that the national courts’ decisions were disproportionate. Thus, they violated Gasparini’s freedom of expression and failed to protect public interest information. The Committee accepted Argentina’s acknowledgment of responsibility and considered it a positive step towards resolving the dispute. It also found that the domestic judgments, ordering Gasparini to pay damages for defamation after publishing a book about a matter of great public interest, violated Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The UNHRC ordered Argentina to review the sanction, provide adequate compensation to the journalist, and take measures to prevent future violations.

---

Facts

Juan Gasparini, an Argentinian journalist and writer, was granted political asylum in Switzerland in 1980—after being arrested and tortured at the Escuela de Mecánica de la Armada [Navy Mechanics School] (ESMA) during the last military dictatorship in Argentina. His work focuses on investigating human rights violations and corruption in Argentina.

Gasparini conducted a journalistic investigation into how officials and lawyers associated with the ESMA manipulated property titles, by forging documents and signatures, to illegally transfer the ownership of properties that belonged to disappeared persons during the country’s last dictatorship. In 2000, these findings were published in his book La Delgada línea blanca [The Thin White Line]. The book exposed the illegal sale of 27 hectares of land in Chacras de Coria (Mendoza), for US$20 million. According to Gasparini’s investigation, this property belonged to the owners of Cerro Largo, a company whose members were victims of forced disappearances.

Following the the book’s publication, Federico Gómez Miranda, the son of Cerro Largo’s legal advisor—who disappeared along with the three owners of the company—, publicly refuted Gasparini’s allegations, stating that his father was also the rightful owner of the land in question. In response, Gasparini published a newspaper article stating that Gómez Miranda was trying to claim ownership of a land that did not belong to him.

In 2006, Gómez Miranda filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Gasparini, seeking damages amounting to 100,000 Argentinian pesos (approximately US$8,000 in 2006). Gómez Miranda considered that Gasparini’s statements not only defamed his personal honor and the memory of his father but also damaged his public reputation and credibility—regarding his efforts to uncover the truth about his father’s disappearance.

Gasparini replied to the complaint denying any intention to defame or harm Gómez Miranda and arguing that his statements were the result of an investigation—which indicated that Gómez Miranda’s father was not the legitimate owner of the disputed land.

On 19 April 2009, the Federal Court of First Instance of Mendoza rejected Gomez Miranda’s claim and ruled in favor of Gasparini. The court held that the civil crime of defamation had not been committed because it had not been proven that the journalist acted with malice.

Gómez Miranda appealed this decision. On 26 May 2011, the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza overturned the lower court’s verdict and declared Gasparini civilly liable for defamation. The court awarded damages in favor of the appellant for 50,000 Argentinian pesos.

Gasparini filed an extraordinary appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza, alleging judicial bias. According to him some of the judges from the aforementioned court had links to Argentina’s last dictatorship. The appeal also sought to recuse three judges from the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza.

As a result, the judges were removed from the case by the National Judicial Council. Despite the new composition, the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza rejected Gasparini’s appeal on 18 December 2013, as it only raised factual and evidentiary issues.

Subsequently, on 19 February 2014, Gasparini filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Argentina. On 19 February 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed Gasparini’s appeal without providing a detailed explanation. The tribunal referred to Article 280 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure which allowed the court to dismiss cases at its discretion.

On 19 February 2021, Gasparini lodged a communication before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), claiming that the civil sanction imposed by domestic courts against him violated his right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The petitioner also argued that the civil penalty interfered with his ability to work as an investigative journalist—deterring him from investigating matters of public interest.

On 13 May 2022, the  State of Argentina submitted its observations to the Committee, acknowledging its international responsibility. To it, the order to pay a compensation, as issued by national courts, violated Gasparini’s right to freedom of expression.

---

Decision Overview

On August 12, 2024, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued a decision on the matter. The central issue it analyzed was whether the civil sanctions imposed on Gasparini for defamation—after publishing a book and a newspaper article denouncing fraudulent appropriation of property during Argentina’s last dictatorship—violated the journalist’s right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR.

The petitioner claimed that Argentina violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Covenant. He argued that the restrictions imposed on him—in light of his investigative journalism  regarding corruption and human rights violations during Argentina’s dictatorship— were unfair and disproportionate. Gasparini claimed that domestics courts failed to recognize the public interest of his publications and wrongly treated him as a “private individual” rather than a professional journalist. The applicant also argued that the defamation conviction had a chilling effect on his journalistic activities, deterring him from investigating and reporting on matters of public interest—specifically about abuses by the Argentinian State during the last military dictatorship.

For its part, Argentina acknowledged its international responsibility for violating Gasparini’s right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR. The State accepted that the 2011 decision issued by the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza disproportionately restricted Gasparini’s right to disseminate information, as it failed to recognize the special protection afforded to information of public interest. Argentina stressed that the statements for which Gasparini was convicted clearly had a public interest value because they related to human rights violations during the last dictatorship. Moreover, the State argued that the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza should have applied a proportionality test to properly assess whether an economic compensation was adequate, and pointed out that there were alternative ways of protecting the right to honor—such as the right of reply—that would have entailed less severe restrictions on freedom of expression.

At the outset of its analysis, the Committee noted Argentina’s willingness to reach a friendly settlement and its acceptance of international responsibility for the violation of Article 19 of the ICCPR. The UNHRC valued positively Argentina’s recognition that the restrictions imposed on the applicant were disproportionate and that the judicial process against him did not consider the public interest value of the information published by  Gasparini.

The Committee also took note of the State’s acknowledgment that the judges involved in Gasparini’s case had actively opposed efforts to achieve truth, memory, and justice—some of them were even criminally convicted for their role in obstructing investigations about crimes committed during the last military dictatorship in Argentina.

Citing the IACtHR cases of Almeida v. Argentina,  Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela,  and Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras, the UNHRC held that the State’s recognition of “violations of the Covenant constitute[d] a positive contribution to the development of this communication and have a high material and symbolic value in the interest of not repeating similar events.” [para. 9.5].

Considering Argentina’s admission of responsibility, the Committee concluded that the dispute between the parties had been settled. Following this, it held that the State’s actions violated Gasparini’s right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR.

Thus, the UNHRC ordered Argentina to provide an effective remedy to Gasparini—which should include a review of the sanction against him and adequate compensation for the damages he endured. Furthermore, the Committee also ordered Argentina to take measures to prevent similar violations in the future.

---