SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Article 8 requirement that such measures must be “in accordance with law” because the rules were not sufficiently foreseeable or accessible and were not subject to adequate oversight. In this decision the Court does not analyze the right to freedom of expression when considering the reasons for its ruling. Nonetheless, the scope of the protection of privacy in this particular case provides protection to the right to freedom of expression against the chilling effect of surveillance or overly broad data collection. More info here. South Africa: In the case of amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism v. Minister of Justice and Minister of Police (2021) the South African Constitutional Court declared various elements of the legislation authorizing interception of communications unconstitutional and invalid. After a journalist learned that his communications had been intercepted, he and an investigative journalism center approached the Court, arguing that the legislation had serious shortcomings and infringed the right to privacy. The High Court held that the law was unconstitutional, and, on appeal, the Constitutional Court confirmed the High Court’s ruling. The Court emphasized that a lack of safeguards within the law prevented oversight and accountability, and the secrecy that covered the interception regime prevented any challenge to orders of surveillance. The Court noted that this secrecy and impunity heightened the risk of abuse and increased violations of the right to privacy. More info here. Zimbabwe: In the case of Law Society of Zimbabwe v. Minister of Communications (2004), the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe struck down sections of the Postal and Telecommunications Act (the The Supreme Court of Costa Act) that gave the President powers to intercept comRica ruled it is a violation of munications if he deemed it necessary in the interest of public safety. The Law Society of Zimbabwe had freedom of expression and challenged the sections generally and, more specifithe confidentiality of sources cally, in respect of communications covered by lawto order a journalist’s phone yer-client privilege. The Supreme Court found that sections 98(2) and 103 of the Act were too vague to records be released as part adequately allow citizens to regulate their conduct of an investigation into the and were thus too overreaching to be reasonably juspossible commission of a tified in a democratic society. Therefore, they did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of ‘provided crime by a third party. by law’. Furthermore, as the Act did not provide any limitations or control mechanisms on the exercise of the President’s discretion, they unjustifiably infringed the right to freedom of expression and were unconstitutional. More info here. Costa Rica: In the case of Diario Extra v. Director of the Judicial Investigation Agency (2014), the Supreme Court of Costa Rica ruled it is a violation of freedom of expression and the confidentiality of sources to order a journalist’s phone records be released as part of an investigation into the possible commission of a crime by a third party. Representatives of the Costa Rican 17