Page 43
… but like an activity protected by national and international rights, the assertion and diffusion of the thesis proclaimed urbi et orbi* by the respondents not even fitting in the scope of possible criticism of this conduct.
n. The judicial agreement contrary to the above findings, reflected in the appealed judgement, by promoting and making possible in the specific case the re-publication of the book or of the film, and the acquittal for the respondents to pay proportionally and adequately the indelible detriments they have caused to the appellants by virtue of their illegal acts and communication media, according to, by the way, what was previously decided and stated by three of the first instance's judgements uttered in the minutes, is :
On one hand, struck by a vice of erroneous interpretation and application to the case at stake of the provisions of articles 12° of the UDHR, 6°, 8° and 10° of the European Convention on Human Rights, 5°, 6°, 9°, 11°, 13°, 14°, 16°, 17° and 34°to 37° of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in November 20 1989, ratified by Portugal in September 21 1990, of the articles 1°, 2°, 8°, 20°, 26°, 32°, 37°, 38° and 272° of the CRP (Constitution of the Portuguese Republic), 70°, 80°, 81°, 335°, 2°, 483° and 484° of the CC (Civil Code), 371° of the CPP, 74° of the D.L (law decree) 498/72 of December 9, and the 3° of EDTEFP (Disciplinary Statute of Public Function Agents), dedicated by D.L. 234/84 of January 16 and, in the subsequent version still applicable to the minutes, in law 58/2008 of September 9.
On the other hand, struck by the material unconstitutionality by virtue of the normative understanding which the appealed decision gave to the legal norms set out in articles 1°, 2°, 8°, 16°-1, 2, 18°-2, 20°, 26°-1, 32°-2 and 37°-4 of the CRP :
A) when interpreted and applied to the present case, in the sense of allowing the publication of the book or the film, and the acquittal of the respondents to pay appropriately and proportionately the indelible damages that they caused to the appellants by virtue of their action, and abusive and illicit communication media.
and
B) when it is more certain that this interpretation and application of said constitutional precepts, is shown incompatible with the inalienable principles of the dignity of the human person, of the general protection of personality and of the right to good name and reputation, and also under the supervision of effective jurisdiction and of the presumption of innocence.
Note*
”Orbe” in the original, but this is a dative case : urbi (to the city) and orbi (to the world).