The Criminal Appeals Court of Paraguay upheld the dismissal of a habeas data petition filed by businessman Iván Pergher Bruneta against the newspaper Última Hora, setting an important precedent by ruling that the so-called "right to be forgotten" does not exist in Paraguayan law.
The decision was unanimous among justices Bibiana Benítez, José Agustín Fernández, and Miryan Meza de López, who confirmed the ruling issued by criminal judge Darío Báez on April 17, 2024, which had already rejected the action.
Pergher Bruneta sought to have the newspaper remove a January 3, 2023, publication that he considered damaging to his honor and reputation. The businessman argued that the news story continued to generate stigma and re-criminalization, even after the definitive dismissal of the court case covered in the report.
In the ruling, Justice José Agustín Fernández emphasized that there is confusion between the right to be forgotten and the habeas data action. "It is essential to highlight the concrete distinction between the Right to Be Forgotten and the habeas data action, given the difference in their legal nature, the requirements for admissibility, and also the effects they pursue," he stated.
Fernández explained that the right to be forgotten is an "alleged atypical and non-legislated" concept in the Paraguayan legal system, and that using it as a substitute for habeas data to achieve the exclusion of information derived from court proceedings is inconsistent.
Justice Miryan Meza added that the habeas data petition was filed after the legally established 60-day deadline, rendering it time-barred. Meanwhile, Bibiana Benítez argued that for the action to succeed, the data would need to appear in official or private records of a public nature, which is not the case for a newspaper.
Attorney Juan Ángel Pane, representing Pergher, maintained that Paraguay does not have a personal data protection law and that applying habeas data against media outlets would curtail citizens' rights. The newspaper's defense, led by attorney Cynthia Noemí Mendoza, reiterated that the outlet does not constitute an official or private record of a public nature.
With this ruling, the court reinforced that media outlets cannot be compelled to correct or remove journalistic publications through habeas data actions, since they do not fall into the category of public or private records of a public nature provided for in the constitutional guarantee.