Sarotto v Panaderia Argentina

• Jurisdicción: Argentina
• Fecha: 19 Marzo 1986
• Emisor: Federal Court of Appeals (Argentina)

Argentina, National Civil Court of Appeal (Chamber A).

(Zannoni, Pizarro, de Mundo, Judges)

Sarotto

and

Panaderia Argentina

Human rights Freedom of expression Right of person injured by inaccurate or false statements communicated to the public to reply American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 14(1) Relationship to Article 2 Whether States required to legislate to guarantee right

Relationship of international law and municipal law Treaties Fundamental rights under State Constitution American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 Action to enforce right of reply Whether right implicitly guaranteed by State Constitution in absence of specific implementing legislation for provisions of Convention Whether provisions of Convention directly applicable

Treaties Effect in municipal law American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 Ratification by Argentina Requirement to enact domestic legislation to give effect to rights Whether rights enforceable in absence of such legislation The law of Argentina

Summary: The facts:Sarotto applied to the Argentinian courts to enforce his alleged right to reply to a letter containing allegations against him which had been published in the journal of the Association of Bakers of Buenos Aires. Sarotto asked for an order against the editor of the journal, who had refused to publish his reply, requiring him to do so. The court of first instance refused to grant the relief sought and Sarotto appealed.

Held:The appeal was dismissed.

(1) Argentina had approved the American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, known as the Costa Rica Pact. Article 14(1) contained a right to reply.1 But, pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention,2 Argentina was required to enact domestic legislation giving effect to this right and, so long as it had not done so, the right was not yet part of domestic law and was only binding at the international level. In the presence of this specific obligation,

general principles regarding the direct effect of the provisions of international treaties were inapplicable

(2) Basic human rights were, in principle, guaranteed by the Constitution, regardless of whether or not specific implementing legislation had been enacted. But, in the absence of such legislation, the remedy sought in these particular proceedings (an order requiring an editor to publish a reply) could not be granted because Article 19 of the Constitution provided that nobody should be obliged to do something which the law did not require.3

The following...