SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION cuniary damage. However, after Ms. Armonienė’s husband passed away, she appealed the national court’s decision arguing that the adjudged sum of money was inappropriate and there was a violation of her husband’s right to an effective domestic remedy for the infringement of her right to privacy. The Constitutional Court The ECtHR determined that protecting the confidenof South Africa ruled that tiality of a person’s HIV status was especially important since disclosure of that information could lead to the disclosure of private humiliation and the risk of ostracism. Furthermore, and confidential medical the ECtHR noted that such disclosure could dissuade information in a book without people from undertaking voluntary HIV tests. Regarding the publication of Ms. Armonienė’s HIV status, the the full and informed consent Court held no public interest in disseminating such infrom the individuals was an formation. Instead, it found that the sole purpose of the infringement of their right to publication was apparently to satisfy the readership’s curiosity. The Court concluded that in such cases of privacy an “outrageous abuse of press freedom,” the severe legislative limitations on judicial discretion in redressing the damage suffered by the victim and thus on deterring the recurrence of such abuses had failed to provide Ms. Armonienė with the protection of privacy she could have legitimately expected. As a result, the Court determined that Ms. Armonienė suffered non-pecuniary damages that had not been sufficiently compensated and awarded her the sum of 6,500 euros, 3,604 euros more than the maximum sum allowed in such circumstances under Lithuanian legislation. More info here. South Africa: In the case of NM v. Smith (2007), the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled that the disclosure of private and confidential medical information in a book without the full and informed consent from the individuals was an infringement of their right to privacy. Three women living with HIV who had participated in an HIV clinical drug trial and whose names had been published in an official academic report related to the trials learned that their names and HIV status had been published in a biography about a politician without their consent. The women approached the High Court, arguing that this publication infringed their rights to privacy, dignity, and psychological integrity. The High Court held that there had been no infringement of the rights and the Supreme Court of Appeal declined to hear their appeal. The Constitutional Court found that there was no need to develop the common law around privacy violations to include liability for negligence as the author of the book had acted with sufficient intention in publishing the women’s private facts as she had not taken the necessary steps to determine whether the women had consented to their identities being made public. The minority judgment stressed the need to balance the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression and would have held that the common law should be developed, and that – given her position as a member of the media – the author had acted reasonably in relying on information provided in an official academic report. More info here. viii. Information about patients in psychiatric hospitals United Kingdom: In the case of R v. Secretary of State for Justice (2016), the UK Supreme 31