Global Trends: 2015 in Review
A presentation prepared by Agnes Callamard for the annual Justice for Free Expression conference being held on 4-5 April, 2016.
Report for the Universal Periodic Review of Paraguay
IFEX-SPP: Paraguay UPR, Third Cycle Executive Summary: The following is a joint report submitted by the IFEX-SPP Coalition. The objective of the report is to…
Resetting the Relationship Between Police and Press: New Guidelines
This article was first published by the European Journalist Observatory and Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, and is reposted here with permission and thanks. The…
İ.A. v. Turkey
It was not disputed that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting morals and the rights…
Is Resistance Futile? Learning from recent efforts to resist Asia’s digital authoritarians
Summary Since January 2021, our region has witnessed a phenomenal emergence of massive, broad-based uprisings, as citizens push back against the reversal of democratic reforms…
ECtHR decides Delfi AS v. Estonia in Estonia’s Favor
On June 16, 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered judgement on Delfi AS v. Estonia. Delfi AS, one of Estonia’s largest online news…
Mon’em Al-Turki v. Tunisian Internet Agency
Highest Court in Tunisia overturned a ban on X-rated websites.
Department of Health v. Information Commissioner and Rt Hon John Healey MP and Nicholas Cecil
The U.K. First-Tier Tribunal of the General Regulatory Chamber for Information Rights held that a Transitional Risk Register (“TRR”), relating to sweeping changes to the country’s National Health System (“NHS”), should be disclosed under The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) but that a Strategic Risk Register, relating to the changes, was exempt from disclosure. The court found that a public authority must release risk registers evaluating health policy if the request is made when policy consultation and formulation has been largely completed, but not during a period of consultation and when the register includes more sensitive policy information. In the present case, the Court ruled in favor of the public interest in transparency because at the time of the TRR request, the Report largely covered operational and implementation risks being faced by the Department of Health (“DOH”), rather than direct policy considerations. On the other hand, the Court found that the public interest in the Government having safe space to formulate policy took precedence at the time of the SRR request because the request was made at a time when the government was engaged in ongoing policy deliberations.
Transparency, freedom of information and the rule of law: threatened journalists and protection mechanisms
On May 8th 2018, in recognition of the 25th World Press Freedom Day, Ossigeno per l’Informazione and the Authority for Communications Guarantees (AGCOM), in collaboration with…