Yes, they should, particularly as he was imo.
And do you have the proof he was, so it isn't libel?
Why because he was retired, resigned or whatever. That is not how the courts saw it. Even though he had resigned he was still under their influence. I forget the words they used, but it is in the first instance judgement I believe.
For completeness sake:
The criminal investigation officers, retired for various reasons of disciplinary penalty application, retain special rights, being holders of an identification card for recognition of their quality and the rights they enjoy [paragraphs 1 and and 2 of article 149 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Police and Ordinance No. 96/2002 of 31 January].
The statute of the retirement [approved by Decree-Law 498/72 of 9 December] establishes, from its original wording in the respective artº 74, paragraph 1, that the retired, apart from his right to a retirement pension, remains bound to the civil service, keeping the titles and the category of the position he held and the rights and duties that do not depend on being in activity." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0