Oscar Parrilli crossed the constitutionalist Gil Domínguez who rejected his request to advance on press freedom

08/11/2020 - 20:56

• Clarín.com
• Politics

The constitutional lawyer Andrés Gil Domínguez starred on Tuesday in an intense meeting with the senator from the Frente de Todos Oscar Parrilli, who came out to question him for rejecting any management that is to be included in the judicial reform promoted by the national government and that represents an advance on Press freedom.

When presenting in the plenary of commissions of the Senate of the Nation regarding the bill of organization and competence law of the Federal Justice based in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and in the provinces, Gil Domínguez said that any modification that is "potentially negative" becomes a "form of direct or indirect prior censorship".

​The exchange reinforced the different positions regarding the requests made by Parrilli to include an attachment in the judicial reform project sent by the Executive Power to empower the judges to denounce before the Magistracy Council the existence of situations that they interpret " pressure from media powers ".

As soon as the position of the Kirchner senator was known, Gil Domínguez himself wrote a column for Clarín in which he considered that this proposal seeks to condition the journalistic media.

"The manifestations of Senator Oscar Parrilli to include in the judicial reform project the power of the judges to denounce the 'media powers as' pressure group' contravenes the protection provided by the Constitution and the International Instruments on Human Rights to freedom of thought, expression and information ", warned the lawyer. 

And in his presentation on Tuesday, Gil Domínguez reiterated that warning. For this reason, Senator Parrilli wasted no time in crossing the constitutionalist who is also a member of the committee of jurists that President Alberto Fernández created to design legislative proposals to reform the Supreme Court of Justice and the Council of the Magistracy.

The senator and former head of the Federal Intelligence Agency (AFI) asked for the floor to request that the constitutionalist clarify whether "he believes that there has not been media pressure in Argentina on officials, judges and magistrates."

Gil Domínguez replied that, as indicated in Article 13 of the Pact of San José de Costa Rica, "if in any situation it is considered that this freedom of expression has affected certain rights of the people, there are subsequent civil and criminal responsibilities" .

Not satisfied, Parrilli took the floor again and asked him to indicate if he considered that those situations he mentioned about possible pressures against judges represented a "democratic and plural attitude that respects human rights."

The constitutionalist ratified his position and remarked that "what must be avoided is any form that may involve some form of direct or indirect prior censorship." 

The complete crossover

- Gil Domínguez : "I consider potentially negative, eventually, the attempt to include the power of judges to denounce media powers as pressure groups because this is contrary to the regulation of freedom of expression in our Constitution , the treaty on rights human rights and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in terms of the guardianship and protection of this right in what is the relevance of the debates on matters of public interest or of public relevance in the field of constitutional democracy and conventional".

- Parrilli : "I simply want to ask you if you believe that there are not many opportunities in Argentina, beyond the freedom of the press that we all defend. I think without a doubt he understands that freedom of the press and expression is a round trip, it is a right of the issuer and also of whom it is intended, the right to the truth, the right not to be lied to, not manipulated, not misrepresented and not defamed. This has been recognized by human rights organizations. , by the highest authorities who watch over freedom of expression, freedom of the media and from now on one prefers a thousand lies to silence a truth. But I don't know if I misunderstood and I want him to tell me, maybe I'm wrong That he believes that there has been no media pressure on officials, judges and magistrates in Argentina . And if so, if he does not believe that this has existed, how does he think that this case of a well-known journalist was, I do not know if from Channel 13 or TN, but from the Group Clarín obviously, which urged citizens to boo, to discredit, to insult, to offend, to insult certain judges because they did not take a ruling, regardless of what it was. So I want to know what he thinks of this. "

- Gil Domínguez : "Thank you very much Senator Parrilli. What I think is that we have the answer in the American Convention on Human Rights, whose article 13 is precisely the emergent one or the answer for these types of questions. That is, there is a guarantee of freedom of expression, thought and access to information and once it is issued, it can generate subsequent civil and criminal responsibilities, which will be carried out by those who are affected, but the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has The use of the criminal combination is largely restricted, it has almost ruled out, the use of the criminal combination when those issues that are debated and discussed are of public interest or relevance. The answer is in Article 13 of the Pact of San José de Costa Rica. In some situation, it is considered that this freedom of expression has affected certain rights of the people, there are subsequent civil and criminal responsibilities. from the point of view of guardianship or protection, that same convention tries to guarantee that there is no type of direct or indirect censorship by any type of means and that the mechanism of thinking and expressing oneself is fully guaranteed. "

- Parrilli : "Obviously there can be no criminal sanction. And I remind the doctor that the crime of contempt was eliminated from the Penal Code by our government. So it seems redundant that he makes mention of that issue when precisely we have been the that we have carried out that crime. And also, that despite having been violated and defamed, we have never made any criminal complaint. I do not want to be suspicious, but I can understand that he endorses that these actions are carried out or is against. The actions that I described some journalists denouncing, discrediting, defaming and even inciting citizens of escraches to mistreat them on public roads with their children. What does he think of that attitude or if he understands that it is okay for the media not to put any limit? The specific question I ask him is if he believes that it is a democratic, plural attitude that respects human rights. "

- Gil Domínguez : "To the extent that freedom of expression generates some kind of affectation of another right and this right, which is the honor of the people, has greater weight than what you were saying, there is the whole mechanism of responsibilities subsequent civil laws, as established by the recent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice earlier this year.There is the mechanism of subsequent civil liability.What must be avoided is any form that may involve some form of direct or indirect prior censorship. The subsequent responsibilities are and to the extent that honor is affected are open and protected by the American conventions ".

- Parrilli: "It is clear that it defends it. It is well. Thanks."

AFG