Thank you Montclair.
The appeal was, I gather, ex parte. And rather hinged around Amaral right to feedom of expression under article 37 parts 1 and 2, but without considering parts 3 and 4 (
http://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/Paginas/ConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx#art37)
Clipped from sol report (
http://sol.sapo.pt/inicio/Sociedade/Interior.aspx?content_id=2505)
"With reference to the complainants' (the McCanns') privacy, they themselves have given many interviews and talks for the media with information that would not otherwise have been made public," and that, "they voluntarily placed limits on their rights to privacy, in order to achieve higher goals such as the discovery of their daughter's whereabouts."
In doing so, "they opened the doors for others to express their opinion on the subject, about what was being said and also to contradict what was being said, always within a legal and constitutionally guaranteed right to respond and freedom of expression of opinion."
Hence this current trial. I would have though that, given the comments above, Amaral might be more keen get on with it.
But yet again we are seeing delaying tactics.
Which makes me ask the question - "why"?
