38.
On July 10, 1997, a judge of first instance on civil matters resolved the
controversy, rejecting the complaint filed by Mr. Menem and the counterclaim, that is,
the counterclaim filed by one of the journalists. 23 However, that ruling was appealed
and on March 11, 1998, a chamber of the National Chamber of Civil Appeals of the
Federal Capital reversed, by majority, "the appealed judgment [and affirmed] the
complaint, sentencing the Editorial Profile S.A., and [Mr.] Jorge Fontevecchia and Mr.
Hector D'Amico to pay the plaintiff, within 10 days, the sum of $ 150,000.00 [one
hundred and fifty thousand Argentine pesos], in compensation for having violated his
right to privacy, with interests [...], and the publication of an extract of the judgment,
and the costs incurred at both instances.” 24
39.
Given this judgment, the defendants filed an extraordinary federal appeal. 25 On
September 25, 2001, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment being appealed but
modified the amount of compensation, reducing the amount to $60,000.00 26 (sixty
thousand Argentine pesos). Moreover, it confirmed the imposition of “legal expenses”
of prior instances and imposed the costs incurred at this instance at 90% for the codefendants and 10% for the plaintiff. In its judgment, the Supreme Court said that it
would not dispute the veracity of the information disseminated by the news magazine
Noticias, but rather its private nature. The Supreme Court referred to, among other
things, the general standards regarding freedom of expression and private life, to the
resolution of possible tensions between them, and when an invasion of privacy can be
justified, at different thresholds of protection for "famous people whose life is public or
for popular characters," and the restrictions on the sphere of private life for the "public
man," and it concluded:
[t]hat in the case of celebrities, whose lives are public or of popular persons, their public or
private lives may be disclosed when the information relates to the activity that gives them
prestige or notoriety, and when it is justified by the publics interest. But that progress
regarding privacy does not authorize damage the public image and honor of these people and
less to argue that they do not have a private life in any sense that is protected from
interference [...]. Indeed, even the public man, who sees this restriction in the sphere of his
private life because of public exposure which is owed to the performance of his duties, is
entitled to preserve an area in his life of peace and secrecy that is essential to every man, so
long as the private aspect is not related to the management of public affairs or regards a
superior interest in defense of society.
[…]
That, in orders, both the dissemination of issues regarding intimate family matters through the
written word as well as the publication of photographic images—when not authorized by the
plaintiff in time and in the context in which they were used by the press—regarding alleged
family ties and the attitude of the ex-wife regarding such relationships, is an intrusion into the
23
Cf. Judgment issued on July 10, 1977 by the National Court on First Instance on Civil Matters No.
35 of the Federal Capital (case file of annexes to the Report No. 82/10, annex 8, folios 342 and seq.).
24
Cf. Judgment issued on March 11, 1998 by the Chamber H of the National Chamber of Civil Appeals
of the Federal Capital, supra note 17, folios 369 and seq. The amount indicated in pesos had the same
equivalent to US dollars.
25
Cf. Extraordinary Federal Appeal filed on April 1, 1998 by the representative of Editorial Perfil S.A.
and of the alleged victim (case file of annexes to the Report No. 82/10, annex 11, folios 425 and seq.).
26
Cf. Judgment issued on September 25, 2001 by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, (case
file of annexes to the Report No. 82/10, annex 12, folios 523 and seq.). The amount indicated in pesos had
the same equivalent to US dollars.
15