SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION sequently, the Court ordered the plaintiff to pay the legal costs of legal representation to the defendants. l Assessing the public interest of the defendant’s expression targeted by the SLAPP action was a key aspect in the Court’s deliberations in Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador. The Inter-American Court relied on a three-part test to determine that “there [was] no doubt that it referred to a matter of public interest that was protected by the right to freedom of expression.”93 It stated that these criteria encompass “(a) a subjective element, that is, that the person is a public official or the complaint made by public media; (b) a functional element, that is, that the person has acted as an official in the related events, and (c) a material element, that is, that the subject matter is of public relevance.”94 The Court concluded that since an opinion article referred to a matter of public interest, it enjoyed special protection in view of the importance that this type of speech has in a democratic society.95 Similarly, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico in Sergio Aguayo v Moreira,96 concerning a defamation lawsuit instituted by the former Governor of Coahuila against a journalist, considered “the public significance of the information [published by the journalist] and the possibility that its dissemination encourages citizen participation in society.”97 The Court examined whether the facts under which the defendant built his opinion were of public interest and in doing so, listed some examples of what kind of information represents the public interest. In particular, it highlighted the “functions of the State, the impact on general rights or interests, the important consequences for society, the political discourse or if it contributes to or enriches the public debate, among others.”98 The Supreme Court also stated that cases of public relevance require higher thresholds for the protection of the reputation of public officials. These cases occur when i) the alleged party affected in his/her honor is a public figure, as well as when ii) the information disclosed relates to matters of public interest.99 It then held that when freedom of speech is exercised by journalists, it reaches the maximum level of protection given the key role of the press in democratic societies.100 l The Civil Court of Appeals of Argentina in Cristina Fernández v. Eduardo Feinmann,101 concerning a defamation suit filed by the former President of Argentina against a TV commentator, concluded that the journalist’s words were protected under the right to freedom of expression because they were related to a public interest investigation 93 Ibid. 94 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, op. cit., para 113. 95 Ibid., para 115. 96 Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Direct Amparo no. 30/2020, First Chamber, 15 March 2022. The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 97 Ibid., para 89. 98 Ibid., para. 99. 99 Ibid., para 98. 100 Ibid., para 102. 101 The Civil Court of Appeals of Argentina, F., C E . C/ F , E G S/ DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS, File Nº 88115/2016, 29 April 2022, The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 19