(PERIODISTAS/IFEX) – On 14 July 2004, journalist Lúcio Flávio Pinto filed an appeal with the Superior Court and the Federal Supreme Court. The journalist is appealing a one-year prison sentence he is facing for allegedly having defamed a judge, who is now retired. Pinto was the publisher and editor of the daily “Jornal Pessoal”, based […]
(PERIODISTAS/IFEX) – On 14 July 2004, journalist Lúcio Flávio Pinto filed an appeal with the Superior Court and the Federal Supreme Court. The journalist is appealing a one-year prison sentence he is facing for allegedly having defamed a judge, who is now retired. Pinto was the publisher and editor of the daily “Jornal Pessoal”, based in Belém, capital of Pará state, northern Brazil.
In 2000, Pinto criticised Judge João Alberto Paiva for having granted control of a piece of land to a construction company, despite the fact that the status of the land was being contested by the Pará Land Institute.
Paiva did not use his “right to reply” and instead filed a criminal lawsuit against the journalist. In February 2003, the Belém 16th Jurisdiction Criminal Court sentenced Pinto to one year in prison. On 6 July 2004, the Pará Tribunal upheld the ruling but changed the sentence to a fine of approximately US$3,500 because this was the journalist’s first conviction.
Pinto appealed before the Pará Tribunal but his appeal was rejected, reportedly because it had not been filed in time. The journalist felt that his rights had been violated and decided to appeal to the Superior Court and the Federal Supreme Court.
In support of Pinto, nineteen environmental and journalists’ organisations signed a document titled, “Manifesto in support of press freedom”. Greenpeace, the National Journalists’ Federation (Federación Nacional de Periodistas, FENAJ) and the Brazilian Investigative Journalism Association (Asociación Brasileña de Periodismo Investigativo, ABRAJI) are among the signatories who condemned Pinto’s sentence, calling it an attempt to “silence the journalist.” The organisations argued that Pinto had reported on a matter of public interest and that he had used information provided by state and federal government entities.
