22 d) Expert report of Danilo Arbilla, journalist The expert witness is director of a weekly newspaper and magazine in Uruguay; he is a member of the Inter-American Press Association and the Coordinating Committee of the World Press Freedom Committee. He took part in drafting the Chapultepec Declaration and the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression of the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Democracy is in crisis in our countries, and this crisis is manifested by corruption and by the deterioration of the rule of law. When there is a crisis, there is a tendency to seek a “scapegoat,” which is generally the press. When the “villain” is the press, certain offenses, incorrectly known as “press” offenses, are used increasingly as instruments to attack freedom of expression and the public’s right to information. The justice system can become an instrument to attack freedom of the press and freedom of expression. When complaints are filed regarding offenses of defamation and injuria supposedly committed through the media, public officials and political leaders, who must be subject to public scrutiny, begin to “industrialize” trials. It is this sector that uses the norms on the offenses of libel and injuria most frequently; they “draft and enact” them. Such laws “conspire” against democracy. The individual who puts forward his candidacy for public office, asks to be appointed, and has certain powers assumes, “in exchange,” the permanent commitment to be accountable for what he does. However, to the contrary, the public official establishes and resorts to norms that have the specific effect of protecting and hiding what he does. While the offenses of defamation and injuria exist, the journalist will always be in an inhibited position, confronted by the choice of providing information or being punished. The inhibiting effect of “press” offenses –slander, injuria, libel– occurs not only when proceedings are filed against or a sanction applied to a journalist, but previously, just by the knowledge that this threat exists. This feeling of threat weighs significantly, because, for the journalist, it represents future problems for his patrimony, that of his company, and for his relationship with his company. There are newspaper owners who are “annoyed” by journalists who involve them in problems. Also, a legal action represents a loss of time and image, since the mere fact that “he has been before the courts,” casts doubt on the journalist’s credibility. There are other, less onerous, ways of protecting honor, such as the civil system, which are based on the actual malice and malicious intent of the communicator. The criminal system should not exist in the case of statements or information about public officials or individuals in the public sphere. The Declaration of Principles clearly establishes that the civil system is the appropriate mechanism in the case of public officials or individuals in the public sphere. The American Convention does not establish that States should decriminalize slander, libel and injuria. The legal action against a journalist is “gratuitous”. Honor is defended and there is a gratuitous attack on the freedom of the press.