News

After Argentinian journalist Juan Gasparini was ordered to pay damages for his book investigating human rights abuses during the country’s military dictatorship, he brought his case alleging violations of his rights to freedom of expression and to an impartial tribunal to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, a body of independent experts that monitors compliance by States parties with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

One of the experts on the Committee is Professor Laurence R. Helfer, who was elected in June 2022 to a four-year term as the United States representative. In August the Committee issued a decision confirming that Gasparini’s rights were violated. The UNHCR’s decision (in Spanish) can be read here; Helfer’s concurring opinion (in English) is available here. 

Gasparini spoke about his case with Helfer, the Harry R. Chadwick, Sr. Distinguished Professor of Law, in an interview published on the journalist’s website, JuanGasparini.com. Following is a transcript of the interview that has been translated into English.

The UN witness and expert

By the coincidences of my life in Geneva, I established contact with Laurence R. Helfer, independent expert of the UN Human Rights Committee, the body that monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and with his colleague Hélène Tigrouja, both members of the 18 experts of the aforementioned Committee. From that meeting arose the idea of conducting this interview with Laurence R. Helfer, with the aim of disseminating through the individual case that concerns me, the importance of one of the essential tasks of the aforementioned Committee, which examines States, but also individual complaints such as mine, sanctioning States that have violated the Covenant, as has happened with me. As a journalist, I have been an actor, victim and witness in a case, following a newspaper article of my authorship published in Argentina, for which I was convicted by the Argentine courts, the punishment of which has now been repaired by the Committee, and apparently partially recognized by Argentina.

Gasparini:  What are the reasons for your particular interest in my case? How would you summarize, for readers and the media that address human rights issues, the judicial process applied by Argentina to condemn me, violating my individual rights? What violations of the Covenant did the State commit?

Helfer:  Your case is noteworthy because, for the first time, a State party to the Covenant acknowledged its responsibility for violating human rights in response to an individual complaint. Argentina recognized that your rights to freedom of expression and to an impartial tribunal were infringed when a court in Argentina ordered you to pay damages for publishing a book investigating human rights abuses during the military dictatorship, and when your appeal was reviewed by judges who had actively obstructed such investigations.

The Committee’s decision confirms that your rights were violated. But it also commends Argentina for making “a positive contribution” to memory, truth, justice and reparation processes in Argentina, actions that have “considerable material and symbolic value as assurances of the non-repetition of similar incidents”. We hope that more States parties will acknowledge their responsibility for violating human rights in the future.

Gasparini:  I summarized my case on Argentina's violation of my freedom of expression, and of the right to an impartial judge, two fundamental principles whose compliance is monitored by your Committee. How would you, as an international expert in the field, explain the harm committed by the Argentine judicial authorities against me?

Helfer:  The Committee recognized that you were injured by these human rights violations. Under the Covenant, Argentina is required to provide you with an effective remedy. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the State party should review the financial penalty imposed on you and provide you with adequate compensation for the harm you suffered.

The Committee did not require Argentina to apologize to you or to publicly acknowledge its responsibility. However, several members of the Committee, including me, wrote separate opinions explaining why such a public statement would have enhanced the material and symbolic value of Argentina’s admission and broadened awareness of the violations in this case. Importantly, however, the Committee included in its decision the detailed statement by Argentina accepting the facts you alleged and the legal claims you raised.

Gasparini:  You have confirmed my complaint that I was convicted on appeal by a court composed of three judges, two of whom were later sentenced to life imprisonment for their collaboration with the military dictatorship 1976-1983. How do you describe this act, perpetrated by the highest judicial instance of the Argentine State?

Helfer:  The Committee notes that you were recognized by Argentina as a victim of the military dictatorship, in particular that you were unlawfully deprived of your liberty and forced into exile.  The Committee also notes the government’s conclusion that the judges of the Mendoza Federal Appeals Court that issued the ruling against you were manifestly opposed to the memory, truth, justice and reparation process in Argentina and played in active role in obstructing investigations into crimes committed during the dictatorship.

Gasparini:  The Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina refused to annul my undue and illegal conviction [by the Federal Appeals Court]. The Supreme Court did not give any explanation for this decision…. How do you assess this gesture of contempt against an Argentine citizen who respected judicial obligations to demand justice?   

Helfer:  The Supreme Court of Argentina did not address your claims on the merits. Instead, the court simply cited a provision of the civil procedure law that gives it discretion to dismiss so-called extraordinary appeals. In part because of this, the Committee concluded that you had exhausted domestic remedies and thus could bring a case to the Committee alleging violations of the rights to freedom of expression and to an impartial tribunal.

Gasparini:  The Committee gives Argentina a period of 180 days to make reparation for the injury committed to my detriment. … What stands out is the publication of the "present Opinion in its official languages and that it be widely disseminated."

Helfer:  Increasing awareness of the Committee’s Views finding violations of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is essential to promoting compliance with international human rights law. We hope that the United Nations and the government of Argentina will give broad publicity in your case. I hope that this interview contributes in a small way to those efforts