Model Training Materials: Hate Speech, Defamation and National Security such as the monarch,92 the head of State93 and foreign heads of State.94 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has similarly held that special protections for public officials or politicians are invalid,95 while the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has affirmed that laws regarding the reputation of public figures should not provide “more severe sanctions” than those relating to an ordinary individual. 96 Instead of offering special protection to public officials, courts deciding defamation cases should consider the importance of allowing public debate about the actions of public officials. Human rights courts have also frequently held that harsh defamation sanctions are unnecessary or disproportionate, especially when the speech concerns matters of public interest and the target of the speech is a public official. These courts have also extended this approach to other public figures who have subjected themselves to public scrutiny or where the matter under debate is of high public interest. The Inter-American Court, for example, refers to a, different threshold of protection … in the case of public officials, individuals who exercise functions of a public nature, and politicians, a different threshold of protection should be applied, which is not based on the nature of the subject, but on the characteristic of public interest inherent in the activities or acts of a specific individual. Those individuals who have an influence on matters of public interest have laid themselves open voluntarily to a more intense public scrutiny and, consequently, in this domain, they are subject to a higher risk of being criticized, because their activities go beyond the private sphere and belong to the realm of public debate.97 Finally, it should be stressed that criminal defamation laws protecting public officials or politicians against defamation are particularly inappropriate. For example, the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, as noted previously, has not definitively ruled out criminal defamation, but it has nonetheless made it clear in two recent cases that criminal defamation is always improper as a means to protect the reputations of public officials in the context of a debate about a matter of public interest. 98 Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPPs) Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, 15 March 2011, Application No. 2034/07, https://bit.ly/3E95Cm1. Artun and Güvener v. Turkey, Application No. 75510/01, 26 June 2007, https://bit.ly/3TgMwyl. 94 Colombani and Ors v. France, note 69. 95 See, for example, Tristán Donoso v. Panama, 27 January 2009, Series C, No. 193 (Inter-American Court of Human Rights), https://bit.ly/3UqE5By; and Kimel v. Argentina, note 56. 96 Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso, note 58, paras. 155-156. 97 Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, 31 August 2004, Series C, No. 111, para. 103, https://bit.ly/3E5N1Hb. 98 Urrutia v. Ecuador, 24 November 2021, Series C, No. 446, paras. 117-120, 127, https://bit.ly/3FU4Z0L; Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, 30 August 2019, Series C, No. 380, paras. 121-123, 129, https://bit.ly/3DExpt3. 92 93 The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 22