## Facts

- A television program hosted by Bernardo Neustadt aired an interview in which former President Arturo Frondizi stated that a government’s legitimacy of origin could be assimilated to legitimacy of exercise.
- Miguel Ángel Ekmekdjian, a constitutional law professor and attorney, asserted the broadcast offended his republican convictions and constitutional values.
- Ekmekdjian did not sue for defamation; he sought an amparo ordering the program to read his written response on air under a claimed “right of reply” (derecho de rectificación o respuesta).
- He argued standing based on an affected diffuse collective interest in constitutional legality, not a personal honor interest.
- He relied principally on Article 14(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated by statute) and, alternatively, an implied constitutional right under Article 33 of the Argentine Constitution.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 14(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights directly provides a domestically enforceable right of reply absent implementing legislation.
2. Whether a right of reply can be recognized as an implied constitutional right under Article 33, enforceable by courts without statutory regulation.
3. Whether compelling a private media outlet to broadcast a reply without legislative authorization would violate freedom of the press and the constitutional principle of legality.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the amparo and rejected the extraordinary appeal.
- The Court held Article 14(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights was not operative domestically because the right of reply required legislative regulation of “the conditions established by law.”
- The Court declined to derive a right of reply from Article 33, citing the lack of a settled, judicially administrable definition of the right’s scope and conditions.
- The Court reasoned that any restriction on press freedom must be expressly established by legislation, consistent with the principle of legality.
- No order issued requiring the broadcast of Ekmekdjian’s proposed response.

## Legal Principles

- A treaty provision framed as exercisable “under conditions established by law” may be treated as non-self-executing domestically until implementing legislation defines its conditions.
- Courts should not create an undefined implied right under constitutional “unenumerated rights” clauses when its content lacks clear standards for judicial determination.
- Freedom of the press warrants strong protection; compelled publication or broadcast is a restriction that, absent clear legislative authorization, should not be imposed by judicial order.
- Under the principle of legality, individuals and private entities may not be compelled to act without a clear legal command enacted by the competent legislative authority.
- Amparo relief requires a legally recognized, enforceable right; asserted diffuse interests alone do not supply a judicially enforceable entitlement in the absence of positive law.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that, at the time, Argentine courts could not compel a television program to provide a right of reply based on the American Convention or implied constitutional rights because the right required legislative regulation and because judicially imposing it would improperly restrict press freedom without statutory authorization.


Ekmekdjian v. Neustadt, Fallos 311:2497 (Arg. 1988)