The Juror for the Trial of Magistrates (JEM), the body responsible for judging magistrates’ conduct in Paraguay, may assess whether four court orders requiring reports to be removed from ABC Color’s digital archive constituted press censorship. The deadline for the assessment is October 9; afterward, the panel may decide whether to open a preliminary investigation or proceedings against the magistrates.
The complaint concerns decisions issued in the Alto Paraná department in a habeas data action brought by Estanislao Franco de Oliveira, known as “Chilao.” The reports dealt with alleged smuggling schemes, import controls at the border, land disputes and statements by national authorities.
Editorial Azeta S.A., the newspaper’s publisher, filed an unconstitutionality action with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice against two resolutions. The company’s lawyer, César Coll Rodríguez, described the orders as censorship and said the rulings themselves would recognize the truthfulness and public interest of the publications, even while ordering their permanent removal. He also questioned the removal of texts that included the version or right of reply of the authorities mentioned.
Mario Varela, a senator from the Colorado Party (ANR) and the Senate’s representative on the JEM, said the case goes beyond a dispute between a private individual and a media outlet because it involves freedom of expression, freedom of the press and public access to information. “There should be no law or court decision restricting access to information,” he said. Varela, however, avoided anticipating whether the magistrates bore responsibility and said the body would have to determine whether the decisions amounted to censorship or possible poor performance of official duties. He also said he was unaware of a similar precedent at the JEM.
Lawyer Federico Legal said court orders to delete news reports may violate Article 26 of the National Constitution, which protects freedom of expression and of the press and rejects censorship. At the same time, he stressed that the disciplinary assessment depends on a full examination of the judges’ grounds and reasoning.
Legal also questioned the use of habeas data, provided for in Article 135 of the Constitution, in this type of proceeding. The safeguard allows people to learn, correct, update or delete personal data held by public records or by private records of a public nature. In the lawyer’s assessment, its purpose is distinct from journalistic activity. He added that the lack of specific procedural rules for habeas data leads courts to rely by analogy on the procedure for a writ of protection, which may increase legal uncertainty.
The case involves Judge Nélida Alvarenga and appellate judges Humberto Espínola, Bertha Ávalos and Alba Centurión. The JEM has not yet decided whether the conduct of the four magistrates will proceed to a formal investigation.