9.
Amicus Curiae. The Court received an amicus curiae brief submitted by the
Foundation for Press Freedom (FLIP), El Veinte, and Media Defence. 7
10. Final written arguments and observations. On March 9, 2022, the State forwarded
its final written arguments and, on March 15, 2022, the representatives remitted their
final written arguments and the Commission its final written observations. The
representatives forwarded two annexes with their brief with final written arguments.
Neither the State nor the Commission made any observations on those documents.
11. Deliberation of the case. The Court deliberated this judgment on May 16, 17, 18
and 23, 2022, during its 148th regular session.
III
JURISDICTION
12. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3)
of the American Convention because Costa Rica has been a State Party to the American
Convention since April 8, 1970, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on
July 2, 1980.
IV
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
A.
Alleged violation of the principle of procedural equality and the right
of defense
13. The State argued that, during the substantiation of this case before the
Commission, the latter had “modified the matter in dispute” which had previously been
determined by both the alleged victims when lodging their initial petition before the
Commission, and the factual and legal framework delimited by the Commission when
adopting its Admissibility Report, in which it declared that Petition No. 1018-08 was
admissible only with regard to Articles 13, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in
relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. The State noted that the Commission had
included the violation of Articles 2 and 9 of the Convention in its Merits Report, “without
the State having the procedural opportunity to outline its arguments on admissibility and
merits”; this had placed the State in a “clear situation of procedural inequality because
it was determined that two articles had been violated that – in addition to not having
been considered by the petitioners – had not been determined thus by the [Commission]
when deciding on the petition’s admissibility.” Therefore, the State asked the Court to
“review the decisions taken” and to declare the violation of the principle of procedural
equality and the State’s right of defense.
Carlos Jiménez Alpízar, Coordinator of the International Law and Human Rights Department of the Legal Affairs
Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship; Rodolfo Lizano Ramírez, Third Secretary of the Legal
Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, and Steven Orozco Fonseca, Legal Adviser
of the Legal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship.
The brief was signed by Jonathan Carl Bock Ruiz, Raissa Carrillo Villamizar and María José González
Méndez (FLIP); Ana Bejarano Ricaurte, Emmanuel Vargas Penagos and Susana Echavarría Medina (El Veinte)
and Carlos Gaio (Media Defence) and referred to: (i) the enhanced protection of expressions on matters of
public interest and the role of the press in their dissemination; (ii) the international principles concerning the
standard of proof applicable in cases of defamation, and (iii) the elements for analyzing the proportionality of
a civil sanction under the inter-American human rights system.
7
5