A Decisão do TEDH (31)

 (Continuação daqui)

31. Descriminalização da difamação

Por mais do que uma vez, o TEDH sugere que este foi um caso em que as leis penais de difamação foram usadas abusivamente para efeitos de perseguição pessoal e política e reitera ao Estado português a necessidade de acabar com o crime de difamação.

Uma vez já foi referida, é quando cita a Recomendação da Assembleia Parlamentar do Conselho da Europa (cf. aqui). A outra é quando cita extensivamente o Comité de Direitos Humanos das Nações Unidas (cf. aqui, ênfases meus):

6. INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS
   1. United Nations Human Rights Committee

34.  In its General Comment No. 34 on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted at its 102nd session (11‑29 July 2011), the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated as follows:

“47. Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with paragraph 3, and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defences as the defence of truth and they should not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification. At least with regard to comments about public figures, consideration should be given to avoiding penalizing or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice. In any event, a public interest in the subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defence. Care should be taken by States parties to avoid excessively punitive measures and penalties. Where relevant, States parties should place reasonable limits on the requirement for a defendant to reimburse the expenses of the successful party. States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It is impermissible for a State party to indict a person for criminal defamation but then not to proceed to trial expeditiously – such a practice has a chilling effect that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person concerned and others.”

(Continua acolá)