SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION itly referred to the Ontario legislation as “a relevant example of the type of provisions that have been made to combat the SLAPP.”45 They highlighted that “one of the purposes of the law is to discourage lawsuits that seek to limit freedom of expression in matters of public interest, and thus reduce the risk of participation in such matters. To achieve this, said law establishes mechanisms that allow a judge to dismiss this type of lawsuit when it is noticed that it refers to a matter of public interest, except in the exceptions that the norm itself provides. These exceptions refer, inter alia, to cases where the judge finds that the damage suffered by the plaintiff could exceed the public interest of the expression that generated it.”46 l l l Similarly, the Delhi High Court in M/S. Crop Care Federation of India v. Rajasthan Patrika (PVT) LTD cited the work of the University of Denver (US) professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring on SLAPPs,47 as well as US case law concerning the importance of discussions on matters of public interest in a democracy.48 The Western Cape High Court, South Africa, in Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others, highlighted the protection against SLAPPs in the legislation of the US states, certain provinces in Canada, and territories in Australia;49 and also referred to the important decision in a SLAPP case by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association (2020).50 Similarly, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, in Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others,51 concerning the appeal of the mining companies against the decision of the Western Cape High Court, relied on the definition and features of SLAPPs developed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ontario Ltd. v. Pointes Protection Association.52 These examples show that the courts are studying comparative standards and using legislation and case law from other jurisdictions in their decisions. It is also evidence that positive jurisprudence and legislation from one country can serve as an important inspiration for legal protection elsewhere. Courts are highlighting the need to adopt legislative protection against SLAPPs In many countries, SLAPPs are enabled by problematic legislation that does not meet international freedom of expression standards, namely criminal defamation laws, vague and overbroad 45 Palacio Urrutia and Others v. Ecuador, op. cit., Concurring opinion of the Judges Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot and Ricardo C. Perez Manrique, para 15. 46 Ibid. 47 M/S. Crop Care Federation of India, op.cit., para 24. 48 Ibid., para 23. 49 Western Cape High Court Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others, op.cit., para 44. 50 Ibid., paras 52, 56 and 57. 51 Constitutional Court of South Africa, Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others, Case CCT 66/21, ZACC 37, 14 November 2022. The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 52 Ibid., para 94. 13