SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION I. Methodological clarifications The rights to freedom of expression and privacy are recognized in a wide range of universal and regional international treaties. Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights respectively recognize the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, as do Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. At the regional level, the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) recognizes both rights in Articles 8 (privacy) and 10 (freedom of expression), whereas the American Convention on Human Rights does the same in Articles 11 and 13. In the same vein, both rights are recognized at a national level by numerous constitutions in regions across the world. According to the Constitute Project, 192 countries include the right to freedom of expression in their constitutions, while 183 do the same for the right to privacy. As part of the Special Collection of the Case Law of Freedom of Expression, the purpose of this paper is to present, in a systematic manner, the summaries of some of the landmark decisions from different regional and national jurisdictions that are found in the Columbia Global Freedom of Expression database. The paper serves as an illustrative summary of emblematic decisions that may be of interest to judges, lawyers, and activists. It is our aim —through the systematization of the case analyThe purpose of this paper sis included in our database— to present the diverse case is to present, in a systematic law of different legal systems about privacy and freedom of expression, their mutually reinforcing relationship, and manner, the summaries the tensions that have arisen when these rights collide. of some of the landmark decisions from different That said, our paper is not meant to be a comprehensive or exhaustive list, nor a comparative study: it is meant regional and national to be a short reference document that serves as a brief jurisdictions that are found introduction to what is systematized in our database and in the Columbia Global to how different courts have resolved highly contentious matters at the present time. The comparative global study Freedom of Expression of case law about the tension between the right to freedom database. of expression and the right to privacy could fill entire volumes since this is an extraordinarily prolific field in the jurisprudence of both national and regional courts. Furthermore, the way these cases have been resolved by different courts is closely related to the varying legal cultures of each jurisdiction and their understanding of the concept of constitutional democracy. A comprehensive comparative study would have to consider these differences. It is important to note that the paper includes decisions from both regional human rights courts and national high courts. In some cases, however, due to the novelty or the importance of some rulings, we included decisions from first instance, appellate, and specialized courts from a wide number of jurisdictions. It is also true that, in some cases, tribunals in different jurisdictions have arrived at different alternative solutions. For this document, we have chosen the decisions we consider to be of the utmost interest for the following reasons: they conform more clearly to global standards and 7