SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ‘gansters’, wherein a recording mentioned the plaintiff and indicated his involvement in the criminal group’s payroll. Although the Court recognised the plaintiff was a public figure, it failed to consider that public figures should have a higher level of tolerance towards criticism on matters of public interest. These cases demonstrate that the courts are considering the nature of the activities of the defendants targeted through the SLAPP cases and are developing tests to assess what constitutes public interest. They also show that courts have disregarded the relevance and importance of information on matters of public interest based on disproportionate thresholds of protection of reputation. As it was shown, defamation laws enable SLAPPs that increase the likelihood of obtaining negative decisions against the protection of the right to freedom of expression. Protection for SLAPPs is offered by the courts of the highest level From the cases reviewed for this study, it is clear that protection from SLAPPs has been offered at the highest level of judicial protection, that is, at the level of constitutional or supreme courts or at the level of regional courts. ● For example, it took almost 6 years of litigation for a journalist targeted by a SLAPP suit in Sergio Aguayo v Moreira to get a final favorable decision from the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico.117 The proceedings were initiated a few months after publication in June 2016; the plaintiff sought inter alia approx. 500,000 USD in damages. While in March 2019 a first instance court ruled in favour of the journalist - after close to three years of litigation-, the plaintiff appealed the decision and in October 2019 the appeals court sentenced the journalists to pay the requested damages. The defendant had no option but to file a constitutional protection proceeding against the ruling. It took another two and half years, until March 2022, when the Supreme Court issued the final decision in the case. However, the proceeding before the Supreme Court did not serve as a deterrent. The plaintiff filed a second civil proceeding against the journalist in February 2022.118 ● In OOO Memo v Russia, concerning the protection of business reputation of an executive body, the Administration of the Volgograd Region, protection was only awarded at the level of the European Court after 14 years of legal proceedings. The Administration of the Volgograd Region filed a civil lawsuit in October 2008, three months after the publication made by the online media outlet. In April and July of 2009 respectively, both the District Court and the Court of Appeal held that the dissemination of the statements tarnished the business reputation of the executive body.119 It was ten years later that the 117 Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, op. cit., ps. 2-12. See also ARTICLE 19, Superior Tribunal of Mexico City rules against Sergio Aguayo and sets a dreadful precedent against the exercise of freedom of expression, 15 October 2019. 118 See ARTICLE 19, Former Governor Humberto Moreira files a proceeding against journalist and academic Sergio Aguayo for a second occasion, February 2022. 119 OOO Memo v Russia, op. cit., para 13. 22