Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor 462 [2021] 2 MLRA County Court decided that the ISSA was not applicable but the Obligations Act. [91] The court also decided that the disclaimer on Delfi portal could not be relied on to avoid responsibility for the content of the comments which were found to be vulgar in form, humiliating, defamatory and impairing L’s dignity and reputation. The system that was put in place by the applicant company whereby users can notify the applicant company of such comments (quite akin to peer reporting in Malaysiakini) was held to be insufficient and inadequate to protect the rights of others. [92] The court viewed the offensive comments as going beyond justified criticism and amounted to simple insults. The County Court held that the applicant company was the publisher of the offensive comments and it cannot therefore avoid responsibility for those comments. [93] The decision of the County Court was upheld subsequently by the Court of Appeal as well as the Supreme Court. The applicant company then filed a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’), asserting that their freedom of expression (right to impart information) under art 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom (“the Convention”) was impaired by the State of Estonia. [94] In upholding the decision of the Supreme Court which had affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, the ECtHR recounted what transpired in the County Court and the Court of Appeal and held inter alia: i. The nature of the comments was vulgar, humiliating and defamatory and had impaired, the dignity of L’s honour and reputation which cannot be protected by freedom of expression and went beyond justified criticism and amounted to simple insults which cannot be said to had been done in exercise of freedom of expression; ii. Delfi had not required the exercise of prior control over comments posted on its portal and having chosen not to do so it should have created some other effective system which would have ensured the rapid removal of defamatory comments; iii. The measures taken were not sufficient and contrary to the principle of good faith to place the burden of monitoring comments on potential victim; iv. Delfi was not a mere technical intermediary and that its activity was not mere technical or passive in nature but instead it invited users to post comments; v. Delfi could have foreseen the negative reactions and should have exercised caution to avoid being held liable for damaging the reputation of others;