The facts of the case refer to the publication of the journalist Eduardo Kimel’s book “The Massacre of San Patricio”, in which he describes the findings of his research into the assassination of 5 religious personnel. The book criticized the behavior of the authorities charged with the investigation of the homicides, among them a judge who later filed a criminal complaint against Kimel which concluded in his sentencing for the crime of calumny.

The IA Court evidenced the conflict between the right to freedom of expression in matters of public interest and the protection of the honor of public servants, establishing that the prevalence of either in any given case must depend on the weighting given through a proportionality judgment. In the present case, the IA Court considered that the opinion of Mr. Kimel was unrelated to the personal life of the complainant judge, and was instead a critical value judgment on the actions of the judiciary. As such, it cannot be object of sanction, particularly when it refers to official acts carried out by a public official in the course of their duties.