## Facts

- A television program broadcast remarks about Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary that Miguel Ángel Ekmekdjian, a Catholic lawyer, considered offensive to his religious beliefs.
- Ekmekdjian sought an *acción de amparo* ordering the program’s host/producer, Gerardo Sofovich (and associated parties), to read Ekmekdjian’s written response on the same program.
- Ekmekdjian based the requested “right of reply” on the Argentine Constitution and Article 14(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), which recognizes a right of reply “in the conditions established by law.”
- Lower courts rejected relief, reasoning that Article 14(1) required implementing legislation to be enforceable and that Ekmekdjian lacked standing because the claimed interest was not strictly personal.
- After denial of an extraordinary appeal, Ekmekdjian sought review in the Supreme Court of Argentina, which accepted jurisdiction and reached the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 14(1) ACHR creates a judicially enforceable right of reply absent implementing legislation.
2. Whether ratified human-rights treaties must be applied by domestic courts and prevail over conflicting domestic legal rules.
3. Whether a person offended in religious feelings by mass-media speech has standing to seek a judicial remedy compelling dissemination of a reply through the same media outlet.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and granted the *amparo*.
- The Court held that Article 14(1) ACHR is operative and justiciable without prior implementing legislation.
- The Court ordered dissemination of Ekmekdjian’s response through the same television program that aired the contested remarks.
- The Court recognized a federal question because the judgment turned on the meaning of constitutional provisions and a ratified human-rights treaty.

## Legal Principles

- Rights recognized in the Constitution and in ratified human-rights treaties are judicially enforceable by virtue of their constitutional incorporation; regulatory legislation may govern modalities but does not suspend the right’s existence.
- Once a treaty is duly ratified, the State’s international obligations do not depend on an additional internal norm for effective compliance, and courts must give the treaty direct effect.
- In case of conflict, ratified treaties—particularly human-rights treaties—take precedence over inconsistent domestic rules within the domestic legal order.
- Freedom of the press receives strong protection, but it does not extend to illegitimate abuses that injure fundamental rights; rights of reply and rectification are permissible remedial mechanisms.
- Protection of religious freedom and pluralism may support allowing an offended person to respond through the same media channel, without imposing prior censorship on the original speech.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court recognized and enforced a treaty-based right of reply through *amparo*, treating Article 14(1) ACHR as directly applicable despite the absence of implementing legislation and requiring domestic courts to apply ratified human-rights treaties with priority over conflicting internal rules, while balancing press freedom with remedies for harm to fundamental rights and religious freedom.


Ekmekdjian v. Sofovich (Ekmekdjian II), 315 Fallos 1492 (Arg. 1992)