Judge Rossana Elizabeth Frutos Olguín.
Judge Rossana Frutos Olguín rejected a constitutional relief action filed by Axel Rolón—son of Paraguay’s Attorney General—and upheld the validity of a union statement issued by public prosecutors’ union leader Carolina Palacios. The ruling determined that in matters of public interest, freedom of expression and access to information prevail over the protection of a public official’s honor.
The case was heard by Judge Frutos Olguín of the 15th Civil and Commercial Court. Rolón sought to censor a union communiqué titled “The privilege of being someone’s son,” claiming it violated his honor. The judge held that, given Rolón’s status as a public official and the nature of the issues addressed, the right to free expression must prevail.
According to the decision, Palacios acted in her capacity as a union leader, protected by union immunities and exercising her right to address matters relevant to labor and institutional oversight. The statement was shared through WhatsApp status posts with a 24-hour duration, and the court found no evidence of a sustained or orchestrated campaign. The content referred to verified facts, including a criminal complaint filed against Rolón and alleged advantages linked to his relationship with the Attorney General, without attributing criminal responsibility.
Testimonies from Karina Crovato, Vicenta Paola Amarilla, and Elsa Marlene Rolón supported the defendant’s account of the statement’s context and purpose, allowing the judge to characterize the publication as part of organized union activity.
Follow us on Instagram.
Judge Frutos Olguín analyzed Article 26 of Paraguay’s Constitution, which protects free expression and prohibits prior censorship except under strict constitutional limits. She emphasized that Paraguayan law does not recognize “press crimes,” but rather common offenses that may be committed through the media.
The ruling also cited Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into Paraguayan law, which guarantees the right to seek, receive, and disseminate information and ideas, prohibits prior censorship, and allows only subsequent liability established by law to protect legitimate interests such as honor, national security, or public order. It also prohibits indirect restrictions and penalizes hate speech and war propaganda.
International Treaties and the Scope of Expression
The judge referred to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, incorporated into national legislation, which protects opinions and the right to seek and impart information through any medium. Restrictions must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate to protect the rights of others or public order. She reiterated that free expression is essential to democratic debate and the circulation of ideas, strengthening pluralistic systems and informed citizenship.
Alleged Harm, Honor, and Available Legal Remedies
The disputed statement was posted on October 27, 2025, primarily via WhatsApp, and later gained visibility in digital and television media. Screenshots submitted by Rolón confirmed the publication’s historical existence, but the court found no proof of continued dissemination attributable to the defendant.
The judge noted that any ongoing reputational impact resulting from digital persistence should be addressed through subsequent legal remedies—such as correction, reply, or damages—available through ordinary proceedings. Because no imminent threat or active dissemination was proven, the expedited constitutional relief mechanism was deemed inappropriate.
The ruling stressed that other judicial and extrajudicial remedies exist to address alleged harm to honor or reputation. Given the availability of these mechanisms and the lack of urgency, the injunction failed to meet the criteria of subsidiarity and immediacy.
To resolve the constitutional conflict, the court applied a minimal balancing test between competing rights: the plaintiff’s honor, privacy, and presumption of innocence versus the defendant’s freedom of expression, access to information, denunciation of potential corruption, and union freedoms. The court emphasized that under Inter-American jurisprudence—including Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica and Kimel v. Argentina—public officials are subject to heightened public scrutiny.
The challenged statement formed part of a series of union communications criticizing the Attorney General’s administration, referencing alleged nepotism, salary increases, union persecution, and other irregularities. This supported the court’s conclusion that the publication was part of collective union activity rather than a personal attack.
Regarding the reference to Rolón as “reported” in a child sexual abuse case, the ruling noted that the criminal complaint and case file exist. The term accurately reflects a procedural condition and is distinct from “convicted,” thereby preserving the presumption of innocence.
The court also recalled prior jurisprudence, including the case of Christian Chena, in which Judge Frutos Olguín reaffirmed that public officials may be subject to public scrutiny and that prior censorship is inadmissible.
Ultimately, the judge concluded that determining possible harm requires comprehensive evidentiary review and contextual analysis, which must be addressed in ordinary procedures—not through an expedited injunction. The ruling cited Supreme Court precedent establishing a presumption in favor of free expression in matters of public relevance.
El artículo en español aquí.
Esta web usa cookies.