SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION l l l In Judge Svetlin Mihailov v. Mediapool and Boris Mitov,108 a defamation claim brought by a judge against an online media outlet, the Sofia City Court of Bulgaria determined that all expressions made in the articles were humiliating to the honor and dignity of the judge. In reaching this conclusion, the Court dismissed the defendant’s arguments that the articles (concerning elections and candidates running for office) accurately discussed issues in the public interest. Although the Court recognised that the plaintiff was a public figure and enjoyed a lower level of protection of his privacy, it concluded that the reporting was “insulting” and put considerable weight on the “emotional damage” of the plaintiff.109 Similarly, in Cesar Acuña v. Christopher Acosta,110 regarding an aggravated defamation lawsuit filed by the leader of a political party against a journalist and the publishing company of his book, the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru sentenced a journalist to two years in prison despite recognising the public significance of the publication. The Supreme Court stated that the judgement did not seek to restrict or silence the journalistic investigation of a public interest matter but to only analyze the statements in the book and examine whether they respected the “right to honor” of the plaintiff.111 The Court referred to the difference between animus difamandi and animus informandi, where the former means the intention to defame and the latter the intention to inform on a matter of public interest.112 However, the Court only examined the animus difamandi aspect; that is, it only looked at whether the statement showed an intention to defame. It did not consider whether the information concerned a matter of public interest.113 The explicit public interest exception in defamation law was also disregarded in Gašić v. KRIK, Dojčinović and Vojinović,114 about a claim of reputational damage brought by the Director of the Security Information Agency in Serbia against an online investigative media outlet. The High Court of Belgrade did note the existence of Article 79 of the Public Information and Media Law which stipulates that honor and reputation are protected unless the public interest in publishing the information outweighs the protection of dignity and authenticity.115 However, the Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and awarded pecuniary damages by focusing on a) the title of the article as the damaging factor, and b) the mental distress caused by the publication.116 The article concerned the trial against well-known Serbian 108 The Sofia City Court, Judge Svetlin Mihailov v. Mediapool and Boris Mitov, 21 December 2021. The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 109 Ibid. 110 The Supreme Court of Justice of Lima, Cesar Acuña v. Christopher Acosta & Jerónimo Pimentel , Thirteenth Criminal Court, exp. No. 03622-2021-0-1801-JR-PE-30, 10 January 2022. The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 111 Ibid., para 4.11. 112 Ibid., para 4.3. 113 Ibid., “Ruling” section. 114 High Court of Belgrade, Gašić v. KRIK, Reference No. 25 P3 L97l2L, 4 October 2022. The case summary of the decision by Global Freedom of Expression is available here. 115 Ibid., p. 9. 116 Ibid., p.11 & 12 21