SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION It is in fact necessary to balance the “right to be forgotten” with the right to inform the public of the event in which the person was involved. The information regarding that event therefore cannot be deleted from the results of the search engine; it is legitimate that it can be found via keywords that do not include the name of the person involved. 7. Procedural Aspects of De-Indexation One of the most problematic features of “right to be forgotten” claims is that, on many occasions, those most directly affected by de-indexing decisions do not have the chance to participate in the legal proceedings that result in their exclusion from one of the main mechanisms of reaching an audience in the Internet. This has led to calls to include publishers in these proceedings as interested third parties and has often led courts in directions that seek to take those interests into account. For instance, in Mexico, the Seventh Collegiate Circuit Tribunal of the Auxiliary Center of the First Region (Tribunal) granted the owner of a website amparo (federal protection) against a decision that a number of its URLs be de-indexed from Google Mexico. The Federal Institute of Access to Information and Protection of Data (FIAIPD) had issued a decision in favor of an individual who had exercised his right of opposition against the indexing of URLs on Google Mexico’s search engine that linked to a news article in which he is named. This decision was reached without submissions being made by the representatives of the website’s owner. The website’s owner presented a writ of amparo against the decision, claiming it violated her right to freedom of expression and her due process right to be heard in matters affecting her rights. The Tribunal agreed that the website owner’s right to be heard had been infringed, and it ordered the FIAIPD to suspend its original decision and reopen the data protection proceedings so the owner could exercise her right to be heard. In Google Inc. v. B.R., the Supreme Court of Italy corrected a decision that had issued a broad and overreaching remedy. B.R. had brought an action against Google, requesting all the results containing his name to be deleted. Google contested that B.R. did not specifically indicate the URLs that he wanted the search engine to delete, and that there was still a relevant public interest in the information provided about him. The Court of First Instance established that – given the amount of time passed – there was no longer a public interest in that information and ordered the deletion of all the results concerning B.R. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of First Instance, because it did not analyze Google’s claim regarding the lack of identification of the URLs in B.R.’s opening act of the proceeding. The Supreme Court stated that “the request for the de-indexing of certain web pages, in order to be sufficiently specific, must precisely indicate the search results that the plaintiff asks to be removed and, therefore, normally, the precise indication of the URLs of the relevant content. However, in some cases, a detailed representation of the pieces of information associated to the keywords can suffice to clarify what the object of the request is and therefore allow the defendant (search engine) to adequately defend itself”. 23