So, what is the libel case all about?

[Luz]

This is not about defamation - that was ruled out in the previous Court case -, this is about damages and losses. It is up to the claimants to prove that they suffered "objectively" damages concerning:
-the search for Madeleine;
- (and) their well being physically, emotionally/psychologically and socially,
because of the publication of the book, DVCD and TV documentary.
I expect they have supplied expert's reports to prove it and so there's no need for the complainants to give testimony in Court.
In these cases the respondent doesn't have to prove anything, if he/she chooses to respond that can be made 'documentally' or by presenting expert witnesses to counter-argue the proof presented.

I think it is perfectly understandable that Mr an Mrs McCann are not giving testimony since they would not be considered objective witnesses.

[ferryman]

This is not about defamation - that was ruled out in the previous Court case -, this is about damages and losses. It is up to the claimants to prove that they suffered "objectively" damages concerning:
-the search for Madeleine;
- (and) their well being physically, emotionally/psychologically and socially,
because of the publication of the book, DVCD and TV documentary.
I expect they have supplied expert's reports to prove it and so there's no need for the complainants to give testimony in Court.
In these cases the respondent doesn't have to prove anything, if he/she chooses to respond that can be made 'documentally' or by presenting expert witnesses to counter-argue the proof presented.

I think it is perfectly understandable that Mr an Mrs McCann are not giving testimony since they would not be considered objective witnesses.

This is not about defamation - that was ruled out in the previous Court case -, this is about damages and losses.

Well, you're half right and half wrong.

The ex-parte judgment did not consider libel.

That's because the present proceedings are all about libel.

[Luz]

This is not about defamation - that was ruled out in the previous Court case -, this is about damages and losses.

Well, you're half right and half wrong.

The ex-parte judgment did not consider libel.

That's because the present proceedings are all about libel.

The ex.parte judgement was based on an alleged damage of personality rights, which constitute the basis for a defamation trial.
Fortunately it was the understanding of the Appellate judges that personality rights and the right for freedom of expression are equal, in the face of the law. The decisions that both Courts subscribed were that, since the McCann had invited the Media to their inner family life circle they had exposed themselves to criticism. So no basic rights were affected and the right to freely express an opinion was granted. Which means that the book, DVD and documentary were not defamatory.

[ferryman]

The ex.parte judgement was based on an alleged damage of personality rights, which constitute the basis for a defamation trial.
Fortunately it was the understanding of the Appellate judges that personality rights and the right for freedom of expression are equal, in the face of the law. The decisions that both Courts subscribed were that, since the McCann had invited the Media to their inner family life circle they had exposed themselves to criticism. So no basic rights were affected and the right to freely express an opinion was granted. Which means that the book, DVD and documentary were not defamatory.

The ex.parte judgement was based on an alleged damage of personality rights, which constitute the basis for a defamation trial.

It was based on the right of free speech, which is guaranteed in the Portuguese constitution.

The personality right is the right to a good name, which is also guaranteed in the Portuguese constitution, and which was found to prevail in the first hearing the McCanns won.

[Luz]

This is not about defamation - that was ruled out in the previous Court case -, this is about damages and losses.

Well, you're half right and half wrong.

The ex-parte judgment did not consider libel.

That's because the present proceedings are all about libel.

If the present court case was about libel, there would be a discussion about the contents of the documents, which has occurred before. If you read carefully the depositions of the witnesses and the questions that are put to them, there is no question whatsoever about the contents of the documents, but about its consequences.

Compensations in libel cases imply that the defamatory object, document, declaration, ...is proven to constitute a crime of defamation. That chance was lost when the Appellate court ruled them as legal and not defamatory.

What Isabel Duarte is invoking here is a Civil Law - Civil Responsibility - that obligates persons or organizations to compensate others for damages suffered even when there was no intent.

[ferryman]

If the present court case was about libel, there would be a discussion about the contents of the documents, which has occurred before. If you read carefully the depositions of the witnesses and the questions that are put to them, there is no question whatsoever about the contents of the documents, but about its consequences.

Compensations in libel cases imply that the defamatory object, document, declaration, ...is proven to constitute a crime of defamation. That chance was lost when the Appellate court ruled them as legal and not defamatory.

What Isabel Duarte is invoking here is a Civil Law - Civil Responsibility - that obligates persons or organizations to compensate others for damages suffered even when there was no intent.

In a trial scheduled to end in November, Isabel has first sought to establish that the McCanns have suffered damage, as required by Portuguese libel law ...

[Luz]

The ex.parte judgement was based on an alleged damage of personality rights, which constitute the basis for a defamation trial.

It was based on the right of free speech, which is guaranteed in the Portuguese constitution.

The personality right is the right to a good name, which is also guaranteed in the Portuguese constitution, and which was found to prevail in the first hearing the McCanns won.

What was at stake was "personality rights" versus "freedom of speech" - they are both FUNDAMENTAL rights in the Portuguese Constitution. Neither is more important than the other. Even though the first judge messed up, the Relation and the Supreme Court Judges, considered that both rights were contemplated and respected by the publication of book, documentary and DVD.

[Luz]

This is not about libel - if the book is not defamatory there is no LIBEL.

This is about MONEY, as Isabel Duarte said in the first day when interrogated by the journalists.

[ferryman]

What was at stake was "personality rights" versus "freedom of speech" - they are both FUNDAMENTAL rights in the Portuguese Constitution. Neither is more important than the other. Even though the first judge messed up, the Relation and the Supreme Court Judges, considered that both rights were contemplated and respected by the publication of book, documentary and DVD.

The dispute over the injunction, yes, I don't think anyone's querying that.

And what messed up was the ex-party judgment overruling the (perfectly sound) original judgment finding that the McCanns' right to a good name should prevail.

Now we have the libel trial

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=mccann+v+amaral+libel+trial