FOR FREEDOM OF THE “FERAL BEASTS”
2 de julio de 2008
Eduardo Andrés Bertoni
Who attacks the press and how do they do it?The independent press was subjected to fierce attacks during the Latin American dictatorships. This is neither novel nor curious: independent journalism is a constant threat to anti-democratic regimes. However, there is also tension between the government and the press in democratic societies. The example of Thomas Jefferson is illustrative: his opinion on the press changed after he was elected president.[1] Recently, a British Prime Minister on his way out of office unfortunately labeled journalists “feral beasts” due to their conduct in the search for news[2].
Even though there is conflict between the government and the press in both democratic and anti-democratic societies, the last several years have shown that the government’s mechanism for dealing with the press changes depending on the type of government. In order to illustrate this matter, I will classify the types of attacks and problems facing the press.
The attacks and problems (A/P) facing the press can be divided into three categories: 1) attacks on physical integrity – API; 2) psychological pressure – PP; and 3) problems practicing the profession – PPP. The persons responsible for these attacks and problems can be divided into four groups: a) government officials using the state system – OUSS; b) private citizens using the state system – CUSS; c) officials not using the state system – ONUSS; and d) citizens not using the state system – CNUSS.
The following table summarizes this classification in both dictatorships and democratic governments in Latin America:
|
A/P
|
Dictatorship
|
Democracy
|
|
API
|
OUSS
CUSS
ONUSS
CNUSS
|
ONUSS
CNUSS
|
|
PP
|
OUSS
CUSS
ONUSS
CNUSS
|
OUSS
CUSS
ONUSS
CNUSS
|
|
PPP
|
OUSS
CNUSS
|
OUSS
CNUSS
|
Included in the API category are threats to personal safety, kidnappings, disappearances, and even assassinations. Leaving for another time a discussion of the link between certain semi-official groups and the state system, it is clear that these types of threats have decreased in democratic societies. Threats from drug trafficking[3] (CNUSS) and certain acts of physical aggression towards journalists committed by government officials[4] do not involve use of the state system.
Included in the PP category are threats that do not involve physical integrity. The sources of these types of threats do not change from a dictatorship to a democracy. The clearest examples in this category are the threat of initiating civil or criminal proceedings as a result of one’s journalistic work, and the threat of loss of employment as a result of specific journalistic investigations. More concretely, both government officials and members of the public make use of the state system with insult, libel, slander, and invasion of privacy proceedings, and legal or administrative regulations on radio and television program content. Furthermore, the discretional nature of the allocation of official publicity illustrates how the state system is used to put psychological pressure on the press to deal with certain subjects. Even outside of the state system, statements made by government officials can intimidate journalists, and can have specific consequences that negatively affect their work.[5] Advertising by private citizens and private groups connected with news organizations can put additional pressure on journalists to avoid certain subjects. This is another type of psychological pressure that does not involve use of the state system.
Included in the PPP category is the problem of public access to information and official sources. The psychological pressure journalists face caused by lack of job security is linked to the lack of a regulatory framework to protect their work. In this case, private citizens benefiting from the lack of regulation create problems for journalists in the practicing of their profession. As in the previous category, the persons responsible for this type of attack do not change from one type of government to another.
As the above table clearly illustrates, the persons responsible for the APS category threats have changed from dictatorship to democratic society. This is major and confirms that the situation for press freedom is better in democratic societies. However, given that APS category threats continue to take place, the responsibility for creating appropriate prevention mechanisms and investigations into the threats, and for punishing those responsible, falls to the State. As I will return to at the end of this paper, weaknesses in the judiciaries of Latin America negatively influence the fulfillment of this responsibility.
In addition to the preceding analysis, an empirical study, exceeding the scope of this paper, is needed. The study should determine which types of attacks and problems are most frequently employed in both types of government. Intuitively, I am inclined to believe that the state violence of dictatorships leads to a greater use of methods that threaten personal safety. In democracies, the state system is not used so brutally; rather it is used in a more sophisticated manner but can still negatively affect press freedom.
In summary, even accepting that the situation for press freedom is better now than it was during the dictatorships, as the above table indicates, there are still a number of problems facing democracies in Latin America.
Using the state system to attack the press
As I have shown, there are certain persons (government officials and private agents) who use the state system as a mechanism to put psychological pressure on and create problems for the press. One solution could be to promote cultural change through public policies promoting the value of the press in a democratic society, with the goal being that these persons will not misuse State tools when they feel attacked by the press. The types of public policies to consider for this goal, for example education policies, could potentially have an impact in the long term.
However, in the short term, certain public policies could minimize the risk of the state system being used as a mechanism of aggression towards the press, or being used to hinder the work of the press. These public policies should be directed at changing the administrative laws, rules, and regulations used as tools against the press. Without listing all of them[6], these laws include:
a) Insult laws;
b) General criminal defamation laws;
c) Civil laws protecting privacy and honor;
d) Laws and administrative regulations on the control of media content and authorization for prior censorship in order to protect certain values; and
e) Insufficient laws and regulations on public access to information.
Next I will discuss these laws, indicating the ways they can be used to put psychological pressure on and cause problems for the press. Moreover, I will propose corrections that should be made so that the laws cannot be used in these ways.
Insult laws
Insult laws, which give special protection to government officials and specific State institutions whose honor has been insulted, are being repealed in Latin America. The combined work of organizations that defend freedom of expression, journalists, and the inter-American system for the protection of human rights is responsible for their repeal.
Since 1994, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has held that: “Desacato [insult] laws restrict freedom of expression because they carry with them the threat of imprisonment and/or fines for those who insult or offend a public official [...] The fear of criminal sanctions necessarily discourages people from voicing their opinions on issues of public concern particularly when the legislation fails to distinguish between facts and value judgments.”[7] In addition to the intimidating effects of insult laws, the IACHR also held that: “Considering the consequences of criminal sanctions and the inevitable chilling effect they have on freedom of expression, criminalization of speech can only apply in those exceptional circumstances when there is an obvious and direct threat of lawless violence.”
A little over ten years later, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights was clear in its decision in the Palamara case[8]: “likewise, in having included in its domestic legislation insult laws in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, some of which are still in force, Chile has failed to comply with the general obligation to adopt domestic legislation from Article 2 of the Convention.”[9]
Between the Inter-American Commission report on the compatibility of insult laws, and the Inter-American Court decision in the Palamara case, many states repealed these laws from their criminal codes: Argentina (1994), Paraguay (1998), Costa Rica (2002), Peru (2003), Panama (2004), El Salvador (2004), and Honduras (2005). Guatemala repealed its insult law in 2006.
Nevertheless, insult laws persist in many other countries. The recent Venezuelan Penal Code reform is an example of the resistance to repealing desacato laws from current criminal codes. Also, in May 2007 President Correa of Ecuador initiated criminal defamation proceedings against the director of the newspaper La Hora, Francisco Vivanco, after a March 2007 editorial entitled “Official Vandalism” in which the president’s conduct in government was criticized. President Correa said afterwards that he would not drop the lawsuit against Vivanco.[10]
In conclusion, even though no journalist is currently serving jail time for violation of insult laws, the possibility remains that these laws could be used against the press. For this reason, insult laws should be repealed, as clearly mandated by the Inter-American Court.
General criminal defamation laws
In addition to insult laws, criminal legislation to defend the honor of government officials can also be used as a tool to put psychological pressure on journalists, above all in contexts where the judiciary is politically controlled by the government.
Libel, slander, and defamation laws continue to be used frequently in the Americas, although this has started to change. For instance, some countries have implemented laws modifying these crimes so that they cannot be used as tools to pressure journalists.
In April 2007 criminal defamation laws were repealed at the federal level in Mexico. Previously, in May 2006, the “Law of Civil Responsibility for the Defense of Honor, Private Life, and Self Image,” had eliminated “honor crimes” from the Federal District Penal Code, in order to direct these lawsuits to the civil courts.
In Argentina, President Kirchner asked his officials on more than one occasion to withdraw complaints involving these crimes .[11] This could be an indicator that for some politicians, the use of criminal legislation as a pressure tactic, even when legally permitted, is not the way to proceed in a democratic society.[12]
However, the attitude illustrated in the previous example from Argentina is not widespread. In August 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay restored a five-month prison sentence for journalist Carlos Dogliani for the crime of defamation. Another example took place in May 2006 when the Fourth Chamber (Constitutional branch) of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica rejected an appeal of unconstitutionality against Article 7 of the 1902 Press Law, which punishes crimes of libel and slander committed in the press with up to 120 days in jail.
In order to avoid these laws being used to put pressure on the press, they should be repealed, just like insult laws. The repeal could be partial, limited to a number of cases where public interest is at stake. However, a partial repeal might not be the most appropriate option because it would leave open the possibility for interpretation by judges as to whether or not public interest is at stake. In contexts where the judiciary is weak, the outcome in these types of cases can be anticipated.
Civil laws protecting privacy and honor
In Latin America, a field that has been seldom studied until now is compatibility of press freedom with civil laws protecting privacy and honor. Because of this type of legislation, million-dollar verdicts have been obtained for supposed damages to honor or intrusions of privacy, especially in contexts where there is a lack of judicial independence. This can have an intimidating effect on the press.
These types of laws are widely debated by the media and their attorneys in other places such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where they are frequently used against the press.[13]
It is clear that the problem of legal regulations influencing the work of journalists is not limited to the realm of criminal law. There can also be problems in the realm of civil law as a result of certain forms of expression.
In journalism, the right of freedom of expression can serve as justification for publishing a piece that could affect someone’s privacy or honor. However, in these types of cases the publication could either be found to be justified or not, or put another way, the author of the publication could either be sentenced or not. Exposure to trials with such uncertain outcomes gives one pause as to the deterrent effect of civil legislation, and added to this is the lack of clarity regarding the amount of the fine if convicted.
Faced with these circumstances, a possible course of action could be to introduce the actual malice doctrine in the realm of civil responsibility, eliminating the criteria of objective responsibility in these cases and preventing the reversal of the burden of proof.[14]
Laws and administrative regulations on the control of media content and authorization for prior censorship in order to protect certain values
When Venezuela began to debate reform of its radio and television law, the government argued that the objective of the new legislation would be to protect minors and prevent racial hate speech and incitement to violence in the media.[15] The name the final law took was the “Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television.”[16]
The Venezuelan law raised a subject that has been almost forgotten in certain circles: the possibility of controlling certain messages based on content. This is possible but in a limited and exceptional way. For instance, the United States Supreme Court case law is comprehensive on this subject: the decisions are clear inasmuch as they call for a strict scrutiny of whether regulations restricting certain messages based on content are compatible with the First Amendment. Restrictions of time, place and manner are not considered incompatible with the First Amendment per se. Furthermore, there is constant debate in the United States over Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. These administrative regulations are regularly questioned in court.[17]
In Latin America both the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 13, paragraphs 4 and 5), and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, serve as the legal foundation for certain regulations on media content. However, I maintain that these documents leave little room for possibilities. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that Article 13(4) of the American Convention “establishes an exception to prior censorship, since it allows it in the case of public entertainment, but only in order to regulate access for the moral protection of children and adolescents. In all other cases, any preventive measure implies the impairment of freedom of thought and expression.”[18] Likewise, Article 13(5) considers that hate speech shall be an offense punishable by law when it contains an incitement to “violence or to any other similar illegal action.”
In spite of the fact that international law is limited and cautious in its treatment of possible restrictions on freedom of expression, many of the administrative and legal regulations in Latin America are anachronistic, or their legal principles are vaguely and broadly defined. As a result, problems arise because there is no appropriate control for the weaknesses of the judicial powers in the region.
Other examples, in addition to the one mentioned above, also illustrate the problem. Article 29 of Colombian Law 182/95[19] establishes that: “Except where arranged in the Constitution and the law, the expression and broadcasting of advertising and program content on television is free and will not be subject to censorship or prior control. However, it can be classified and regulated by the National Television Commission, with the intention of promoting quality, guaranteeing the fulfillment of the aims and principles of the public television service, protecting the family and vulnerable groups, especially children and adolescents, and guaranteeing their harmonic and full development, and encouraging Colombian productions...”
Article 40 of the Peruvian Radio and Television law[20] establishes limitations on the broadcasting of certain content during “family hours,” which last from 6AM to 10PM. Specifically, the law determines that programming broadcast during these hours should avoid violent, obscene, or “other” content that could affect the values of families, children, and adolescents. The law further determines that failure to comply constitutes a serious infringement. Note the room the government leaves itself for classifying “other” content.
In Argentina, the Radio Broadcasting Law[21] stipulates that the content of radio programs should, among other vaguely defined objectives, “contribute to the strengthening of faith and hope in the Argentinean Nation” (Article 14). The law also stipulates that radio services should contribute to the cultural enrichment of the population, and that program content should, among other things, promote respect for state institutions and the preservation of Christian morality (Article 5). The law prohibits programs whose content threatens listeners’ health or physical safety (Article 16).
In conclusion, Latin American regulations on radio and television content, whether administrative or legal, should be revised because they are often used as mechanisms to put pressure on the independent press.
Insufficient laws or regulations on public access to information
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights interpreted that access to public information is a human right included in the American Convention, especially within Article 13. This interpretation was reflected in both the Fourth Principle of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, and in the reports of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. More recently, in the Claude Reyes decision the Inter-American Court held that “by expressly stipulating the right to ‘seek’ and ‘receive’ ‘information, Article 13 of the Convention protects the right of all individuals to request access to State-held information, with the exceptions permitted by the restrictions established in the Convention. Consequently, this Article protects the right of the individual to receive such information and the positive obligation of the State to provide it, so that the individual may have access to such information or receive an answer that includes a justification when, for any reason permitted by the Convention, the State is allowed to restrict access to the information in a specific case.”[22]
This decision was considered historic by many organizations that defend freedom of expression and access to information. The Inter-American Court became the first international court to interpret access to information as a fundamental human right.
The Court recognized that there could be restrictions on this right; however, these “must have been established by law to ensure that they are not at the discretion of public authorities. Such laws should be enacted ‘for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established.’”[23] Moreover, the Court clarified that “the restriction established by law should respond to a purpose allowed by the American Convention. In this respect, Article 13(2) of the Convention permits imposing the restrictions necessary to ensure ‘respect for the rights or reputations of others’ or ‘the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.’” And, finally, the Inter-American Court established that “the restrictions imposed must be necessary in a democratic society; consequently, they must be intended to satisfy a compelling public interest.”[24] It is important to highlight that the Inter-American Court placed the burden of proof for possible restrictions on this right in the hands of the State.[25]
In practice, many Latin American States have already passed laws on access to information. However, they seldom follow international standards regarding the regulation of restrictions, and it is for precisely this reason that the laws cannot be used as tools for journalistic investigation. Put another way, if exceptions are the rule, or the delivery of information takes an excessive amount of time, these laws cannot contribute to the work of journalists, who will have to continue searching for information through informal channels.
Journalists in the region should closely follow the implementation and practical application of these laws, and should promote the necessary reforms so that the laws can serve as useful tools, but journalists are also responsible for finding out about the existence of these tools and their proper use. Unfortunately, this has not been happening on a widespread basis.
Conclusions: change the laws or improve the judiciary?
Several of the above-mentioned situations illustrate how many current laws are problematic for press freedom because of weaknesses in the judiciary and lack of judicial independence from the government, meaning that laws are always interpreted and applied in a manner unfavorable to the press.
The lack of confidence in the Latin American judicial systems is an old subject and one that continues unresolved. The latest study by the Latinobarómetro is more than eloquent on this matter.[26] A recent study on the judiciary in Central America performed by the Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF) draws some important conclusions.[27] The study concluded that, in the majority of Central American countries, judges are appointed to the Supreme Court on the basis of political criteria, rather than according to their merit and professional qualities. Political favoritism is then established in the countries’ highest courts, affecting judicial independence.
In light of these circumstances, it must be questioned whether reforming the laws and administrative regulations discussed in this paper could improve the situation for the press in contexts such as the one described above. I believe that reforms can contribute to this objective.[28]
However, reforms should take into account the weaknesses of the judiciary in Latin America, and should, at a minimum, limit any possibility of interpretation that could restrict press freedom.
No one law can cover all of the situations it is meant to resolve, and in a democracy judges are meant to fill in the gaps. However, in the Latin American context, the premise that judges act independently of pressure from politicians who are “victims” of the independent press cannot be accepted. For this reason, reforms should leave the minimum amount of room for negative interpretation. Considering reforms without taking into account the context is an academic exercise disconnected from reality, without impact or concrete benefits. Without reforms, the “feral beasts,” as Tony Blair unfortunately labeled journalists, will continue to be intimidated or encaged.
*Executive Director of the Due Process of Law Foundation, Washington, DC, USA. Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Organization of American States (OAS). Attorney, University of Buenos Aires. MIPP, George Washington University. Teaching Fellow, Human Rights Institute, Columbia University School of Law. Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, University of Buenos Aires. Adjunct Professor, George Washington University Law School. I would like to express my gratitude to Carlos J. Zelada for his valuable contributions to this paper. Carlos Zelada is a graduate of the Master of Laws Program at Harvard Law School (LLM, 2004) and is a graduate of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru School of Law (Attorney, 2001), where he is a professor. Furthermore, he was consultant and expert counsel to the office of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the OAS.
[1] The following quote from 1787, years before he became president of the United States, is attributed to Jefferson: “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Years later, when he became president and was harassed by the federalist press, he wrote: “so abandoned are the Tory presses in this particular that even the least informed of the people have learnt that nothing in a newspaper is to be believed. This is a dangerous state of things, and the press ought to be restored to its creditability if possible. The restraints provided by the laws of the states are sufficient for this if applied. And I have therefore long thought that a few prosecutions of the most prominent offenders would have a wholesome effect in restoring the integrity of the presses.” The change in rhetoric from before and after becoming president is eloquent.
[2] Available at: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,,2101652,00.html.
[3] Some recent examples of such threats are found in Mexico. In May 2007 the newspaper Cambio de Sonora temporarily suspended publication after suffering two bomb attacks attributed to drug traffickers in less than one month. In May 2007 drug traffickers put a human head outside of the Tabasco Hoy newspaper offices. The head bore the following message: “This happened to me because I made an anonymous call to the authorities.” Available in Spanish at: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=22324.
[4] Two recent examples of such acts are found in Peru. On November 11, 2007 a journalist from the town of Huari was caught in an ambush, apparently set up by the local mayor and several municipal employees. After intercepting the journalist’s automobile, the mayor, several municipal employees, and their bodyguards assaulted him and threatened his life. On November 13, 2007 the mayor of Otuzco struck a journalist and expelled her from a municipal council session. The radio station where the journalist worked had implicated the mayor in a case of local corruption. Available in Spanish at: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24472.
[5] Examples of such statements can be found in Colombia over the last several years. In June 2006 the President of the Republic stated in a radio interview that journalist Hollman Morris had received information prior to a guerilla attack on the Armed Forces in the province of Putumayo. Even though the President later retracted his statement, Morris cut short his visit to Putumayo for fear of reprisal. In October 2007 Morris and his family left Colombia. Also in October 2007 the President stated in another radio interview that journalist Gonzalo Guillén was behind a series of publications connecting the President to paramilitary leaders and drug traffickers. Guillén found himself under the protection of the Ministry of Justice and Domestic Affairs, and decided to leave Columbia just days later. Available in Spanish at: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24137.
[6] Vague or insufficient laws and regulations on the allocation of official advertising, and insufficient laws and regulations on job security for journalists could be added to this list, but these matters are beyond the scope of this paper.
[7] IACHR. Annual Report 1994. Chapter V: Report on the Compatibility of “Desacato” Laws with the American Convention on Human Rights, Section IV(B). Available at: http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/94eng/chap.5.htm.
[8] IACHR. Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Decision, November 22, 2005.
[9] The underlining is ours.
[10] Available in Spanish at: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=22229.
[11] Available in Spanish at: http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-53190-2005-07-03.html.
[12] Compare the Argentinean President’s attitude to that of his Ecuadorian counterpart from the previous example.
[13] The recent annual meeting of the Media Law Resource Center (MLRC), held in London in September 2007, reported on these debates. In particular, see articles published in the MLRC Bulletin, 2007 Issue No. 3, September 2007.
[14] Going into detail about the actual malice doctrine is beyond the scope of this paper. On this topic, see Eduardo Bertoni, Freedom of Expression in Democracy (Second Edition), Editores Del Puerto, Buenos Aires, 2007, Chapter 11.
[15] The law’s objectives are established in Article 3 as follows: 1. Guarantee that families and the population as a whole can count on legal mechanisms that permit them to adequately develop the role and social responsibility that falls to them as users, in collaboration with the providers of services and with the State.
2. Guarantee respect for freedom of expression and freedom of information, without censorship, within the proper limits of a democratic state, and with all of the responsibilities that come with exercising this freedom, consistent with the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and international treaties on human rights and the law ratified by the Republic.
3. Promote the effective exercise of and respect for human rights, in particular, those concerning the protection of honor, private life, privacy, self-image, confidentiality, reputation, and access to relevant, true, and impartial information, without censorship.
4. Ensure that information and material directed at children and adolescents is of social and cultural interest, and is directed at the progressive and comprehensive development of personality, aptitude, mental and physical ability, respect for human rights, for parents, for cultural identity, and for other cultures, and is directed at leading a responsible life and forming an appropriate human and social understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of the sexes, and friendship among nations, ethnic groups, and indigenous peoples, and, in general, that contributes to the formation of social conscience in children, adolescents, and their families.
5. Promote broadcasting of domestic productions and domestic independent productions and encourage development of the national audiovisual industry.
6. Promote balance of the rights, obligations, and interests of people, providers of services, and related parties.
7. Promote broadcasting of Venezuelan cultural values in all of their ranges and expressions.
8. Promote facilities for people with hearing disabilities so that they can enjoy programming to a greater extent.
9. Promote the active participation of citizens in asserting their rights and contributing to achieving the objectives established in the present law.
It is interesting to highlight that in the Explanatory Preamble to the proposed law, it was clearly established that the proposed “Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television” would establish a series of complementary rules aimed at guaranteeing the appropriate and comprehensive protection of the human rights of children and adolescents, and would be in keeping with the Organic Law of Telecommunications, which regulates the telecommunications sector, of which radio and television form a part. The proposed Law would establish a set of time blocks and a classification system for programs, with the aim of preventing children and adolescents from being exposed to programming that violates their human rights or is harmful to their overall development. Non-compliance would be subject to a system of penalties. Also, the production and broadcasting of programs especially directed at children and adolescents would be encouraged. On the other hand, with the aim of spreading social responsibility in radio and television, guidelines would be added instructing parents and guardians on how to train children and adolescents to use radio and television, and either monthly programming guides would be published, or the type of program would be announced before it is broadcast.” Available in Spanish at: http://www.conatel.gov.ve/ley_responsabilidad/ley.htm.
[16] The law was widely criticized by various groups, with good reason. Many of the critics explained that, although the law seemed to have legitimate objectives, there were mechanisms designed to control radio and television content that went well beyond fulfillment of the stated objectives.
[17] For an excellent report on the FCC, see Lili Levi, The FCC’s Regulation of Indecency. Available at: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=19102.
[18] IACHR, “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Decision, February 5, 2001, Paragraph 70.
[19] Law 182/95 regulated television service, set forth policies for the development of television service, and democratized access to television. The law complies with the National Television Commission, promotes the television industry and activities, establishes rules for the contracting of services, restructures television entities, and makes other arrangements regarding telecommunications. Available in Spanish at: http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/leyes/L0182_95.HTM.
[20] Law 28278, July 15, 2004. Available in Spanish at: http://www.mtc.gob.pe/portal/comunicacion/politicas/normaslegales/basicadetelecomuni/28278.pdf.
[21] Law 22.285. Available in Spanish at: http://www.comfer.gov.ar/leyderadiodifusion22285.php.
[22] IACHR, Marcel Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Decision, September 19, 2006, Paragraph 77.
[23] Claude Reyes v. Chile, Paragraph 89.
[24] Claude Reyes v. Chile, Paragraphs 90 and 91.
[25] Claude Reyes v. Chile, Paragraph 92.
[26] Available in Spanish at: http://latinobarometro.org/uploads/media/Informe_Latinobarometro_2007.pdf.
[27] Evaluation of Judicial Corruption in Central America and Panama and the Mechanisms to Combat It, DPLF, November 2007. Available at: http://www.dplf.org.
[28] But it is also necessary to work for the improvement of the judiciary in Latin America. Public policies for achieving this will be slower to have an impact.