SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION impossible to pay by the defendants. Further, it stated that the request of ordering the journalist to refrain from mentioning him in future publications shows a pattern of abuse that translates into prior censorship of public interest discourse.86 The Court explicitly recognised the importance of victims of sexual violence exercising their right to freedom of expression to denounce this problem.87 The victims did not pursue criminal complaints to report sexual abuse and violence due to insufficient judicial guarantees that protect the rights of women. These cases show that defendants are increasingly using existing rules on abuse of process to get SLAPP cases dismissed. They also show that focusing on the motivation and conduct of the plaintiff alone may be insufficient to dismiss SLAPP cases. Moreover, while explicit rules on abuse of process may not exist in many jurisdictions, these cases demonstrate that defendants and courts could rely on existing procedural rules that allow dismissals of cases early on, as well as provisions on abuse of law, mala fide and baseless claims. Courts are considering whether defendants are targeted for expressions about matters of public interest In some SLAPP cases, courts have examined whether defendants’ expressions concerned a matter of public interest and thus were in need of a high level of protection. For instance: l l In Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace (India),88concerning the request for an interim injunction on the basis of unauthorised trademark use and loss of reputation by one of the biggest Indian companies against Greenpeace India, the High Court of Delhi refused to grant the injunction. It stated that granting the injunction would not be in the public interest89 as it “would freeze the entire public debate on the effect of the port project on the Olive Ridley turtles” habitat.”90 The Court also emphasised the importance of protecting speech that can include forms such as “caricature, lampoon, mime, parody and other manifestations of wit.”91 Similarly, the High Court of Belgrade in Popović v. KRIK and Dojčinović, concerning a defamation suit brought by a member of the Serbian Government against an online investigative media outlet, regarded the public interest of the information as a determining aspect in dismissing the claim. The Court first looked at the effect of the articles noting that they contributed to a public interest debate. Second, it assessed the position of the plaintiff – a public figure – who had to tolerate a higher level of criticism than ordinary citizens.92 Sub- 86 Ibid., paras 427-429. 87 Ibid., para 429. 88 The High Court of Delhi, Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International & ANR, IA No.9089/2010 in CS(OS) 1407/2010, 28 January 2011. The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 89 Ibid., para 43. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid. 92 Higher Court in Belgrade, Popović v. KRIK and Dojčinović, 3 June 2019, para 18. The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 18