SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION information about his behavior on the night before a vote that could decide the future of his political career, and could then help inform public opinion on his character. More info here. x. Private images or information of no public interest ECtHR: In the case of Ruusunen v. Finland (2014), the Fourth Section of the ECtHR found that the publication of details regarding the private sex life of Finland’s Prime Minister, published in a book written by his ex-girlfriend, breached the Prime Minister’s right to privacy. More info here. Ecuador: In the case of Nonconsensual Pornography sent to Victim’s Parents (2021), the Constitutional Court of Ecuador held that the storage and sharing of sexual photos without the consent of the victim were a violation of her constitutional rights to personal data protection, reputation, The Inter-American Court of and intimacy. The victim pursued a habeas data action Human Rights considered against the defendant, who had found the pictures in that a series of publications a family-shared computer, saved them in flash memory, and sent them to the parents of the victim. The about the unrecognized Court reasoned those intimate images were personal son of the then president of data sent exclusively to the defendant’s partner and Argentina Carlos Saul Menem required previous consent to be processed by anyone else. When the defendant saved the photos and shared with a congresswoman, them with other people, she inflicted damage and vioMenem’s relationship with lated human rights grounded on dignity and informathe congresswoman, and tional self-determination. More info here. the relationship between the Kazakhstan: In the case of WA and WB v. Mamepresident with his son, were of dov (2019), the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan upheld public interest. fines against a man who recorded and published a video on Facebook of two women without their consent, and by doing so exposed their sexual orientation. WA and WB were secretly recorded kissing by a stranger at a cinema. The stranger then posted the video on Facebook, criticizing their sexual preferences and called on the women to be outed and shamed. The video became viral in Kazakhstan and led to the women becoming targets of harassment and threats. The two were forced to flee Kazakhstan for several months, and eventually sued the man for violating their privacy, and sought compensation for moral harm. The first instance court ruled for the women, only for the judgment to be overturned by an appellate court on the ground that the women’s behavior was amoral. The Supreme Court reinstated the first instance judgment, reiterating that the man violated the women’s right to privacy by recording them without their consent, publishing the subsequent video on social media, which in turn caused the women great harm. More info here. Canada: In the case of R. v. Jarvis (2019), the Supreme Court of Canada convicted a teacher for voyeurism for secretly recording his students in common areas of a school. This offence is committed when a person secretly observes or makes a visual recording of another person with a sexual 33