SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION against the politician. The Court found that the journalist did not intentionally harm the president and thus safeguarded his remarks. The Court noted that the plaintiff was one of the most prominent public figures in the country, so the comments related to her investigation were a matter of public interest.102 Importantly, the Court referred to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights and argued that in cases regarding public officials, the latter should be more tolerant and open to criticism because of the public nature of their duties.103 l l The Supreme Court of Italy also accepted the public interest defence in the criminal defamation case of Concita Di Gregorio and Claudia Fusani v Maria Mangano.104 The case concerned an article written by journalist Claudia Fusani, and published by the newspaper l’Unità, which reported that Maria Mangano was under investigation for alleged connections with an organized crime group in Southern Italy involved in human trafficking. Both l’Unità and its editor have been repeatedly the target of SLAPPs, always aiming at pecuniary compensation worth millions of euros. The lower courts rejected “the right to inform defence” put forward by the journalist and found her guilty of criminal defamation. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions and found that the journalists correctly exercised their right to report and criticise given the circumstances of the case.105 The Constitutional Court of Colombia heavily relied on what constitutes “specially protected speech”, under the Colombian Constitution, to assess the public interest of the information in Ciro Guerra Picón v. Catalina Ruiz-Navarro & Matilde de los Milagros Londoño. The Court reiterated that, in line with previous judgements, both feminist discourse in general, and speech that involves specific reports about sexual harassment, abuse and violence in particular, enjoy special protection under the Constitution. In this case, the feminist journalistic article concerned allegations of sexual abuse and violence against the claimant. Thus, the Court concluded that the matter concerned political and public interest issues. This type of speech is specially protected by the Constitution. The Court added that they are particularly needed to confront discrimination against women and gender-based violence in society.106 The Constitutional Court concluded that the intention of the publication was to contribute to the public debate about violence against women,107 a matter of public concern. By contrast, there are Courts that fail to consider the protection of information on public interest matters in SLAPP cases before them, especially in cases concerning the reputation of public officials and figures. For instance, 102 Ibid., Consideration no. IV. 103 Ibid. 104 Court of Cassation, Concita di Gregorio & Claudia Fusani against criminal sentence Sez. 5 Num. 15587, 23 January 2017. The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 105 Ibid., p. 2 and 4. 106 Constitutional Court of Colombia, op. cit., paras 355 & 324. 107 Ibid., para 374. 20