COSTA RICA

On May 3 the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court upheld the archaic Print Law, which makes the offenses known as injuria (insulting statements or actions) and calumnia (false allegations of a crime) punishable by jail time. The Print Law dates from 1902 and applies only to the print media, which was the only kind of media that existed when the law was passed. Broadcast media are governed by the Criminal Code of 1970, under which these same offenses are punishable by fines. In March, two members of Congress introduced a bill to reinstate the requirement of truthful reporting, contrary to the advisory opinion issued by the Inter-American Human Rights Court in 1985. The bill would also confiscate 20 percent of space or time in media outlets so that citizens may express themselves “freely”; forces media outlets to sell some of its space to third parties for them to publish whatever they wish for a five-year contractual period; imposes prison sentences for failing to uphold the right of reply and extends this to any reply, even in the absence of any inaccuracy or grievance. After international free speech organizations protested, one of the legislators withdrew the bill, but his initiative failed because the second sponsor refused to support the request to withdraw. On July 6 the government newspaper La Gaceta published the text of a bill that would amend Article 66 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction so that the right of correction and reply may also be exercised by people who feel harmed by opinion pieces. Former President Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, who was involved in the scandals that shook the country in 2004, filed an appeal for judicial protection against prosecutor Francisco Dall’Anese claiming that information was leaked from the Public Prosecutor’s Office to the press. Judge Ernesto Jinesta decided to “broaden the scope of the proceeding”—although no party requested this move—to include the editors of the media outlets that published the information that was allegedly leaked by prosecutors. The judge’s June 23 ruling states that Rodríguez not only claims that information was leaked, but that he also alleges “… a possible parallel trial in the press or media in which he feels several mass media outlets participated ….” He asked the editors of these publications to “respond to the appellant’s claims.” The judge’s decision threatens the right of journalists to keep their sources confidential, and the bizarre investigation into the “media trial” opens the door to judicial interference in editorial decisions. Government officials are blocking access to information, despite the guarantees in the Constitution and the American Convention on Human Rights. The Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court has created extensive case law on the need to uphold this basic right, but appeals for judicial protection are handled too slowly for the demands of journalism. Press offices and public relations personnel become barriers between the press and government officials who avoid making statements. Government institutions adopt policies preventing officials from speaking with the press and designating a small group of “spokesmen” to speak with reporters. The trials for the murders of journalists Parmenio Medina and Ivania Mora are proceeding without incident. Both trials are in the phase of oral and public debate. Due to the complexity involved and the amount of evidence to be considered, verdicts are not expected for another several months.