I bet John Ashcroft wishes he had Venezuela's law

VENEZUELA: Court Upholds 'Contempt Laws'
Humberto Márquez - IPS - 7/19/03

CARACAS, Jul 18 (IPS) - The Supreme Court of Venezuela has issued a ruling that those who offend public officials can be sent to prison, upholding the counry's so-called "contempt laws", and earning criticism from the inter-American system and the local media.

In validating the laws against offending public officials -- which exist in most Latin American countries -- the Supreme Court ignored the recommendations made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and laid out an extensive defence of its own authority and of Venezuela's sovereignty.

Attorney Rafael Gavero filed a petition in March 2001 for the annulment of 16 articles of the Venezuelan Penal Code related to slander, defamation and vilification against officials and government. The Constitutional Tribunal of the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld 12 of the articles and ordered some adjustments to the other four.

"I regret the court's decision that validates what are known as contempt laws and which could be used against the exercise of freedom of expression," said Eduardo Bertoni, the Organisation of American States (OAS) special rapporteur for freedom of expression.

In his statement, Bertoni noted that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) had said in 2000 that "public officials are subject to greater scrutiny by society. Laws that penalise offensive expression usually violate freedom of expression and the right to information."

The pronouncements issued by the IACHR hold the status of recommendations for OAS members, which include all nations of the Western Hemisphere, save Cuba, which is suspended from the organisation.

Caracas maintains its contempt laws "while several countries in the region have repealed them, or are in the process of doing so," noted Bertoni.

In fact, Argentina, Costa Rica, Paraguay and Peru are the only countries that have eliminated this sort of legislation that, according to a study by the Washington-based International Centre for Journalists, remains "a powerful weapon of intimidation against freedom of expression" in the region.

The Latin American country with the worst record, according to the study, is Panama, with 90 lawsuits against journalists for alleged crimes of calumny, slander and contempt in the past three years.

But Panama's President Mireya Moscoso says she is committed to overturning these "gag laws".

Caracas newspaper headlines warned that the court is paving the way for prior censorship, and linked the ruling with the Hugo Chávez government's proposed law on radio and TV network's social responsibility, which would limit when they can broadcast programmes with sexual or violent content.

According to José Miguel Vivanco, director of the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, "These archaic norms in the Penal Code violate Venezuela's international legal obligations."

"What they do is criminalize comments that might be offensive to the authorities," he said.

But independent jurist Carlos Escarrá said in a conversation with IPS that the court decision "is not a negative, but rather establishes that the principle of freedom of expression is not unlimited. And those who state something publicly should be held responsible for what they say."

"It clearly establishes that the Venezuelan state should heed the decisions of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, as well as of the integration organisations to which it has ceded sovereignty, but it is not equally obligated to obey what are only recommendations of the Inter-American Commission," Escarrá added.

As for the matter of prior censorship, the jurist acknowledged that it could be associated with the precautionary orders of the courts, to prohibit incitement to war or messages that promote discrimination or religious intolerance.

Information Minister Jesse Chacón said, "Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to slander. The court ruling protects officials and institutions."

He commented that the recommendation by the Inter-American Commission "ignores the 'cartelisation' of political groups that are attempting to debilitate Venezuelan institutions."

Among opposition lawmakers, Gerardo Blyde said the Supreme Court decision "is a blow to critical freedom of expression," and Alberto Jordán stressed that it "violates international treaties and must be rejected."

On the ruling party's side, Tarek Saab told IPS that he thinks the ruling "protects the right to honour and dignity and protects people against the use and abuse of false information to destroy them."

Fellow parliamentarian Omar Mezza noted that it "balances the opportunities in the media: neither those of the opposition nor those of the state can denigrate public officials with impunity."

Mezza admits that the Venezuelan Penal Code is obsolete. "We in parliament are preparing an integral reform of the code." The existing text is based on the Penal Code approved in 1905, with retouches made in 1964 and 2000.

Carlos Correa, director of the local human rights group Provea, told IPS his organisation is studying the Supreme Court decision, but the underlying principle is that the Inter-American Commission's recommendations must be heeded.

Venezuelan comedians, meanwhile, are worried. Much of their material consists of criticising and making fun of President Chávez.

Manuel Graterols says the decision "is proof of the government's poor sense of humour," while comic actor Gilberto González warns that he and his colleagues "could be left without jobs."

The Supreme Court ruling came in a week of great debate about freedom of expression in Venezuela, triggered when Alfredo Peña, the anti-Chávez mayor of Caracas, shut down the community television station Catia TV without first seeking a judicial or administrative order.

Under pressure from human rights and journalist groups, Peña decided later this week to allow the station to reopen after having ordered the premises barred and locked.