FACT CHECKING: WHETHER HUMAN RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED IN PROCEEDING WITH THE LIBEL CASE AGAINST CARUANA GALIZIA

by TBA

The Times of Malta has been promoting the claim that libel judgments that ruled against Daphne Caruana Galizia and awarded damages to former minister Konrad Mizzi and Lindsey Gambin were a human rights violation. This claim, initiated by the Caruana Galizia family, is unsubstantiated and should be regarded as misinformation. The Caruana Galizia family could have sought other legal avenues to have the case dismissed. It likely found none. Instead it opted for a human rights violation argument.

Libel Cover

When the accused in a libel case passes away before a judgment is reached, the court may still proceed with the case and issue a ruling. The death of the accused does not automatically result in the dismissal of the case. If there are other parties involved, such as plaintiffs seeking compensation for defamatory statements that have seriously harmed their reputation, the court may allow the case to continue. This was the situation with Mizzi and Gambin.

The court awarded Mizzi and Gambin €1,000 each, totaling €2,000, in damages. The judgment was made against the estate of the deceased defendant. It is worth noting that the estate is demanding millions of Euros in compensation from the state after Caruana Galizia’s assassination and that the state has also offered compensation to the family. While €2,000 may seem insignificant compared to the estate’s substantial assets, it holds significance in helping Mizzi and Gambin restore their reputation regarding allegations of marital infidelity made by Caruana Galizia while she was still alive.

Gambin & Mizzi

Malta’s legal system upholds human rights principles, but ruling against a deceased person in a libel case does not constitute a human rights violation. Human rights typically apply to the rights and protections of living individuals, and once a person has passed away, their human rights under libel law are no longer applicable.

The distinction between a criminal case and a civil case is crucial. Catching at straws, the Times of Malta failed to acknowledge the distinction. The libel case in question was a civil case.

Human rights frameworks primarily concentrate on safeguarding the rights and dignity of individuals who are alive. In criminal cases, it is a fundamental principle that an accused person possesses the right to a fair trial, which includes the opportunity to defend oneself and present one’s case. When an accused person passes away prior to the judgment, the person’s capacity to engage in the legal proceedings becomes unfeasible.

On the other hand, in civil cases such as libel claims, the situation differs. It is generally recognized that deceased individuals do not possess the same rights as living individuals. Malta permits libel claims to be pursued against a deceased person’s estate.

Human rights frameworks emphasize fairness, due process, and the right to a fair trial. While it is possible to challenge a court ruling against a deceased individual’s estate on procedural or due process grounds, it is important to recognize that the deceased person’s right to a fair trial under human rights arguments may cease to apply upon death.

The Court of Magistrates, presided by Victor Axiak, made the correct decision in dismissing the human rights argument. The Court determined that Caruana Galizia’s blog post was libelous when it claimed that Mizzi and his former communications coordinator, Gambin, were in an intimate relationship and that the minister’s marriage had broken down.