Access to Public Information, Defamation / Reputation
Aécio Neves da Cunha v. Twitter Brasil
Closed Expands Expression
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
The Mexican Information Commission (Instituto General de Acceso a la Informacion Publica, or IFAI) held that the public prosecutor must properly disclose to Petitioner information on the number and status of preliminary investigations formerly conducted by the Special Prosecutor for Social & Political Movements of the Past.
This analysis was contributed by Right2Info.org.
In May 2007, the Petitioner requested from the public prosecutor (Procuraduria General de la Republica, or PGR) a report on the “status of preliminary investigations formerly undertaken by the Special Prosecutor for Social & Political Movements of the Past” (FEMOSPP) including information on which investigations remained open and how many had been archived, and which offices and public officials were handling them.
The PGR refused to comply with the request alleging that information was reserved under Articles 14(I) and (III) of the Federal Transparency and Access to Public Governmental Information Law (RTI Law) and Article 16 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure (FCCP), which allow disclosure only to the parties involved in criminal proceedings.
In a hearing held in July 2007, the PGR subsequently modified its initial stance and agreed to disclose information on the status of former FEMOSPP preliminary investigations including how many of them remained open, in which office each was located, who was assigned to each investigation and how many investigations had been archived. In August 2007, the PGR filed its response precisely outlining each of these items with IFAI.
IFAI analysed the information furnished by the PGR and determined it was sufficient and adequately addressed all items included in the Petitioner’s request. IFAI noted, however, that the PGR furnished no evidence that this information had been actually handed over to Petitioner [p.11]. Therefore, it instructed the PGR to hand it over to Petitioner within 10 business days.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.