courts, allowing them “a margin of appreciation” to conclude that the grant of injunctive relief was necessary, especially in light of what the Court saw as their careful weighing of the public interest in preventing disclosure and the public interest in disclosing the information. Finally, the Court concluded that the temporary injunction was proportionate as it was not a blanket prohibition – publication was forbidden, but seeking a public inquiry into the allegations contained in the book was not.1The Court noted that the injunctions were supposed to be temporary but were actually in force for more than a year, but then countered itself with the fact that the trial had actually gone forward. The Court’s conclusion is one of deference to the domestic tribunal – the national authorities were entitled to judge the restrictions necessary.For the second period, however, the Court reached a different conclusion. Once the information had been disseminatedthrough the country by means of copies published abroad, then the campaign “to preserve the secret character of information that ought to be kept secret” was lost. The reason for the restriction was no longer preserving national secrets, but “the promotion of the efficiency and reputation of the Security Service, notably by preserving confidence in that Service on the part of third parties, making it clear that the unauthorised publication of memoirs by its former members would not be countenanced, and deterring others who might be tempted to follow in Mr. Wright’s footsteps.” The Court concluded that these were not sufficient reasons to restrict the newspapers from publication.When information is no longer secret, the reasons for the State to impose such restrictions would tend to be rejected by the Court, is an analysis which is supported out by another case decided by the Court: In this case, the Court concluded that, if the information is no longer secret, limits on its distribution are not justified. Vereniging Weekblad Bluf! v. The Netherlands, Case no. 44/1993/439/518, para. X (Exhibit 25).Jaffa, April 20, 2004 Fredrik S. HeffermehlVice President, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear ArmsNiels Juels gt. 28 A, N-0272 Oslo, Norway[email protected]1
This is the end of the preview.
access the rest of the document.
restrictions, The Court, ICCPR, General Comment No.