112. In relation to the foregoing, in this case, the Court confirms the following regarding
the content of the article “NO to lies”, published on February 6, 2011 in El Universo
newspaper: (a) it refers to opinions and assessments regarding the events that occurred
on September 30, 2010 in Ecuador, and the subsequent acts carried out by the then
President in response to the acts of the police; (b) particular reference is made to “the
possibility of pardoning” the people who participated in said events based on “a pardon”;
(c) it is stated that the reason for this action by the authority was that it had "no way to
prove the alleged crime of September 30", and points out that "everything was the product
of an improvised script" before the decision of the then President on "entering into a rebel
barracks”; (d) it is stated that the “evidence” to accuse the “coup plotters” has
“unraveled”, and assessments are made regarding said evidence; (e) the article
“proposes” a “way out”: not to grant a pardon, but rather “amnesty in the National
Assembly”; f) the article concludes by stating that “with a pardon, in the future, a new
president, perhaps his enemy, could bring him before a criminal court for having given the
order to fire at will and without warning against a hospital full of civilians and innocent
people. Crimes against humanity, don’t forget, have no statute of limitations.” The Court
also notes that the article refers to the then President with the adjectives of "Dictator",
refers to him sarcastically as "devout Christian, man of peace", refers to his government
as "the Dictatorship" , and refers to his manner of acting on September 30 as that of "a
‘Chacascán’ wrestler."
113. In the first instance, in regard to the subject of the article “NO to lies”, the Court
recalls that the concurrence of at least three elements is necessary for a certain note or
information to be part of the public debate, namely: (a) a subjective element, that is, that
the person is a public official of the complaint made by public media; (b) a functional
element, that is, that the person has acted as an official in the related events, and (c) a
material element, that is, that the subject matter is of public relevance. 174 The Court
considers that, ultimately, the events of September 30, 2010 were an event of great
importance in the political life of Ecuador. The then President occupied a central place in
national politics, and, in particular, he was a central actor in the events referred to in the
article, both in relation to his actions on September 30, and in subsequent actions related
to the possibility of granting a pardon in favor of the police officers involved. Thus, there
is no doubt that it referred to a matter of public interest that was protected by the right
to freedom of expression.
114. Secondly, the Court highlights that the column was signed exclusively by the
author and was found in the section corresponding to the contributions of “columnists”,
the article makes constant references in the first person, e.g. “[I] don't know if the
proposal includes me”, “[I] understand that the Dictator”, “[I]f I committed a crime”,
etc. It also refers to the fact that the then President was a "Dictator", or that in the
future an enemy of his " could bring him before a criminal court for having given the
order to fire at will and without warning against a hospital full of civilians and innocent
people.", and that “crimes against humanity, don’t forget, have no statute of limitations”.
These constitute an assessment regarding the events that occurred and that were the
subject of debate. The words used by Mr. Palacio Urrutia, although they constitute an
exaggerated reality, can be considered as rhetorical emphasis on the point that the
alleged victim stated that he wanted to highlight that, instead of pardon, he should grant
an amnesty so that he too would be covered for the liabilities that could arise against
him. 175 In view of this, the Court concludes that Mr. Palacio Urrutia's brief was an opinion
174
Cf. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, par. 113.
175
Cf. Statement by Emilio Palacio Urrutia during the Public Hearing.
39