SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 6. Alternative Measures De-indexing a site from a search engine is hardly the only remedy available to satisfy the interests lying behind the “right to be forgotten” claims. Other measures, less intrusive on the freedom of expression interests are available and have been explored by Courts. One of them is forcing publishers to update information. For instance, in Surgeon v. Courts of Appeals of Santiago, the Supreme Court of Chile ordered several media outlets to update a story about a surgeon. In 2009, a surgeon was sentenced to 61 days in prison and the payment of compensation because a patient died as a result of medical malpractice. Several media outlets published information about the case in their digital portals. The doctor served his sentence and paid the corresponding compensation. In 2018, the doctor requested the elimination of the articles from the online media outlets. The request was rejected by the media and, subsequently, by the Court of first instance. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the case, considered that the information published by the media was of public interest. In order to achieve a balance between the right to information and the right to honor, the Court ordered the media to update the article. Similarly, the Constitutional Court of Colombia analyzed an action to enforce constitutional rights action (acción de tutela) submitted by a citizen against Google and the newspaper El Tiempo. In GloThe Supreme Court, upon ria v. Google and El Tiempo, the plaintiff requested hearing the case, considered the Court to order the defendants to remove a journalthat the information published istic article published online, which highlighted her relation with a criminal proceeding. She argued that by the media was of public although the information originally published was interest. In order to achieve true, the process had exceeded its prescriptive period a balance between the right and she was never formally charged. In its judgment, the Court ordered the newspaper to update the inforto information and the right to mation in its webpage and to prevent online search honor, the Court ordered the engines from identifying the news through the plainmedia to update the article. tiff’s name. The Court absolved Google from any liability due to its position as intermediary. The Court had already reached a similar conclusion in the prior case of Martínez v. Google and El Tiempo. Finally, in Yahoo!Emea Limited e Yahoo!Italia S.R.L. v. Garante per la Protezione dei Dati Personali the Supreme Court of Italy had to deal with a similar demand. The plaintiff argued that there was no longer a public interest to the right to inform regarding that case. Yahoo denied this request. The Italian Data Protection Authority ordered Yahoo search engine (an Irish company) to delete both those URLs and the cached copies of those web pages. Yahoo brought an action against the Authority’s decision, which was upheld by the Court of First Instance of Milan. The Supreme Court confirmed the Court’s decision but established that it can be requested that the search engine proceeds with the de-indexing; however, from the existence of the conditions legitimizing the de-indexing does not necessarily follow that the cache copies must be deleted. 22