CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5297CEC5 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s538D183F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s440A90EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s96B1B5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sD4EAAB82 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s716C64EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s89DB49F5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6C2746C6 { margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6047437D { width:11.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s4F205613 { width:122.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BAENA SALAMANCA v. SPAIN (Application no. 23236/22)     JUDGMENT Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private life • Dismissal of civil defamation action of a forensic doctor of the Audiencia National against a newspaper in respect of an article alleging she “had ignored” a court order to examine an ETA member in relation to his conditional release • As a civil servant acting carrying out official duties, applicant subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism than a private individual • Fair balance struck by domestic courts between competing Art   8 and Art   10 interests in conformity with criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law • Margin of appreciation not exceeded   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 6 November 2025   FINAL   06/02/2026   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Baena Salamanca v. Spain, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Kateřina Šimáčková , President ,   María Elósegui,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Gilberto Felici,   Andreas Zünd,   Diana Sârcu,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   23236/22) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Spanish national, Ms   Maria del Carmen Baena Salamanca (“the applicant”), on 29   April 2022; the decision to give notice of the application to the Spanish Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 30 September 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the alleged failure of the domestic courts to properly balance competing rights (Articles   8 and 10 of the Convention) in the defamation proceedings instituted by the applicant, by offering insufficient protection to the applicant’s right to protect her reputation. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Madrid. She was represented by Mr J.R. López Fando de Miguel, a lawyer practising in Madrid. 3.     The Government were represented by Ms H.E. Nicolás Martínez, Co ‑ Agent of the Kingdom of Spain to the European Court of Human Rights. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5 .     In 2012 the applicant worked as a forensic doctor ( médico forense ) of the Forensic Institute of the Audiencia Nacional (“the forensic centre”). She explained in her submissions in the domestic proceedings that she was the only doctor assigned to the courts and sections of the Audiencia Nacional , and that at the time of the events of this case she was responsible for making any report requested by the court. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE 6.     B. was a member of the terrorist group ETA. He had been sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment for the murders of three Guardia Civil (civil guard) officers and the kidnapping of a prison officer and had been serving his prison sentence in the Álava Prison since 1998. At some point he was diagnosed with metastatic kidney cancer. The Central Juvenile Court (which has prison supervisory functions) of the Audiencia Nacional (“the prison supervision court”) instituted proceedings for the conditional release of B. under section 92 of the Criminal Code. Court orders of 16 and 23   August 2012 for the medical examination of B. 7 .     On 16 August 2012 Judge C., a judge responsible for the execution of the sentences of the prison supervision court sent an official letter ( oficio ) to the forensic centre enclosing medical reports on B. so that the forensic doctor assigned to that court could report on B.’s state of health. 8 .     On 17 August 2012 the letter was received by the forensic centre, and was acknowledged by a handwritten note which said “ Received ”, followed by the date and an illegible signature. The applicant appeared before the court to prepare the report. 9 .     On 23 August 2012 the prison supervision court sent another accompanying letter ( oficio ) to the forensic centre. It stated that, “as a follow-up to the decision”, the court was sending B.’s medical records so that the forensic doctor assigned to the court could prepare a report as provided ( efectos prevenidos ) in Article   92(3) of the Criminal Code (see paragraph   92 below). 10 .     It is not in dispute that the accompanying letter of 23 August 2012 was received by the forensic centre. A note acknowledging receipt and the signature on the copy of it provided to the Court are illegible. The medical expert report prepared by the applicant 11.     On 24   August 2012 the applicant compiled a new report on B.’s state of health based on the medical records provided to her (see paragraph   9 above). She addressed the general conditions of the detainee’s health, his diagnosis, the progress of the disease and the prognosis. The report concluded that, despite a poor long-term prognosis (the applicant assessed the median survival time at a little over eleven months), B. was not terminally ill and was only presenting mild clinical symptoms of the disease at the time when the report was compiled. The applicant’s assessment was that, at the time, medical assistance and treatment could be provided to B. by the medical services at the Mansilla de las Mulas detention centre and, if radiotherapy and/or surgical treatment were prescribed, in a hospital. Any further symptoms were to be assessed as they appeared. Subsequent developments in B.’s case 12.     On 28 August 2012 Judge C. of the prison surveillance court, travelled to the D. hospital in San Sebastian to assess the situation firsthand. He met B. and the medical team, including the oncologists responsible for treating B. It appears that the public prosecutor was not informed of the visit until 29   August 2012, and nor was the applicant informed in advance. 13.     On 30 August 2012 the prison surveillance court ordered the conditional release of B., based principally on the medical expert report prepared by the applicant and a report dated 22 August 2012 provided by doctors from the D. hospital which in essence assessed B.’s disease as very serious and predicted a shorter life-expectancy than that in the applicant’s report. On 5 September 2012 the public prosecutor appealed against the order on both substantive and procedural grounds. Pursuant to an order of the prosecutor, on 12 September 2012 the applicant prepared a new medical expert report, which was also based on the information provided by the D. hospital. Her conclusion remained unchanged in substance. On 19   September 2012 a criminal chamber of the Audiencia Nacional composed of five judges rejected the appeal and upheld the conditional release order, finding, among other things, that both reports, despite certain discrepancies, showed B.’s illness to be severe and that he had a poor prognosis. 14.     B. was accordingly released. His release and the related proceedings received wide media coverage in Spain and gave rise to a heated public debate. 15.     In 2015 B. died at his home. THE EL PAÍS article and the order ( providencia) of 17   August 2012 The El País article 16 .     On 5   September 2012 El País , one of the leading national newspapers, published an article headed “[B.’s] case” in its internet edition, with title “ The Forensic Doctor Ignored (Ignoró) the Judge’s Order to Examine the ETA Member ” in bold and the subtitle “ The Prosecutor’s Appeal is Based on a Report Compiled Remotely ”. The article included an insert in a larger font size, “ Baena’s [Report] Is Based On Reports by Other Doctors Who Treated the Detainee ”, and another insert concerning the prosecutor’s request for a plenary Criminal Chamber to consider granting a release. The news item read as follows: "The [applicant], a court doctor, did not travel to San Sebastián to examine [B.], the kidnapper of [a] prison officer, to determine whether the kidney cancer with metastases to the brain and lung which has left him with less than a year to live was [sufficient grounds] to release him on parole. She failed to do so despite [( a pesar de que )] an order of Judge [S.] of 17 August [2012, made] at the request of the public prosecutor’s office of the Audiencia Nacional . Now, the prosecutor is relying heavily on [the applicant’s] report - which was prepared only [on the basis of an analysis of] reports from other doctors who had examined the ETA member - to appeal against the prisoner’s release as proposed by the prison institutions, which are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior, as accepted on Thursday by [Judge C.]. This report, which had been prepared remotely by the court doctor, was crucial to the prosecutor’s opposition to the release of the ETA member. The public prosecutor’s office is relying on this report to challenge the one prepared by the doctors at hospital D. in San Sebastián, where [B.] is being treated, and which was used by the prison institutions when they recognised him as having a [disability] in the third degree and proposed his release. The public prosecutor’s office’s statement of its opposition to the release of B. and also the appeal it filed yesterday against [the release] both emphasised that the detainee [was] not in a terminal state and could be treated for his conditions without leaving prison, as [the applicant] asserts. [Judge C.] himself went to San Sebastián to meet the ETA member and the doctors who [were] treating him. He [further] decided to question the oncologists at the hospital to resolve the contradictions between the two reports (the hospital’s and the court doctor’s). [The oncologists] informed him that [B.’s] cancer could not be cured and that, because it had metastasised, his life expectancy would be between three and seven months. That new information was fundamental to the [judge’s decision] to release him, subject to a possible appeal by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The prosecution’s view, however, was that [Judge C.] had gone in person to San Sebastián in violation of the "rules of good faith and procedural fairness." [P.R.], the prosecutor who had signed the appeal, claimed that the [fact that there had been an] interview with the oncologists in San Sebastián had only been communicated to the prosecutors the day after, "when the [examination] had already been carried out," which was why he considered that the public prosecutor’s office had been deprived of an opportunity to contest the case and that there had been a breach of its right to due process. According to [Judge C.], the purpose of the process [that he had undertaken] had been to obtain "clarification" of the medical reports, "particularly from the specialists who are at the patient’s bedside and who [were] treating him." The prosecutor also accuses the judge of concealing information from him and the court doctor. He refers to another report from oncologists in San Sebastián, prepared on 22   August [2012], which certifie[d] that the nodules found in the ETA member’s lungs and cerebellum [were] metastases from his kidney cancer. [Hospital D.] sent that report to the Basque Health Service, which in turn sent it to the Audiencia Nacional , but it never reached them. [Judge C.] learned of its existence during his visit to the centre and put it on the file. The prosecutor is asking for the cancellation of the release order because neither the court doctor nor the public prosecutor’ office had access to the [...] latest proceedings. For the rest, the prosecutor reiterates the arguments contained in the report opposing the release. [Notably], since according to the [applicant’s] report B. is not in the final stages of his terminal illness, he cannot be exempted from the requirement to sign an express declaration that he has renounced violence and asks for forgiveness from the victims. However, the public prosecutor’ office did not impose [that] requirement in the case of [O.], [another] ETA member released from prison in January 2011 with a prognosis and life expectancy similar to [B.’s], of 12 months. However, the appeal also has a substantial depth. The public prosecutor’s office requests that the final decision on [B.’s] release not be left to the five judges of the [ Audiencia Nacional’s ] first section — the one responsible for prison matters and deciding upon all appeals against decisions made by [Judge C], who had the last word on [B.’s] freedom — but rather to the criminal chamber as a whole, composed of 18   judges. The reason for this, according to the letter, is “the implications this could have for other cases” and “the need to establish uniform legal criteria”. This last request is of enormous importance. In judicial circles it is asserted that the First Section, given its mostly progressive composition, would confirm the [release order] by [Judge C]. However, the Plenary of the Criminal Chamber [of the Audiencia Nacional ] ... leans more to the right, and its decision, [as] these sources maintain, [c]ould be unpredictable. President of the Criminal Chamber, [Judge G.-M.], has the power to refer the matter to the plenary, but sources from the [ Audiencia Nacional ] gave assurances yesterday that he will not do so. [The issue of B.’s] freedom will only be decided by [eighteen judges of the Plenary Criminal Chamber] if more than half, that is, ten of them, make a request to that effect.” 17 .     The article was illustrated with a photograph of Judge P.’s published decision ( providencia ) of 17 August 2012 (see paragraph   19 below) ordering that B. be examined by a forensic expert, accompanied by the following text: “The document containing [the] judge’s order. [Judge P.] made a written order for a forensic expert to examine the detainee in situ on 17   August 2012”. 18.     On 6   September 2012 the article was reproduced in the Spanish edition of the El País newspaper, headed “Controversial Release”. The order ( providencia ) of 17   August 2012 19 .     As subsequently established by the domestic courts in the proceedings summarised below, on 17   August 2012 Judge P. of the prison supervision court substituting Judge C., issued an order ( providencia ) for B. to be medically examined by a forensic doctor for a report on his state of health, the progress of his disease, his short- and medium-term prognosis and the appropriate place for the treatment of his condition. The forensic doctor was also required to specify whether the disease could be adequately treated in the prison hospital. The same order asked the Central Prison Service and the detention centre to provide information about the medical treatment the detainee was receiving and the capacity of the prison system to adequately deal with his condition. The prison authorities were further asked to provide the court with the administrative file on B’s application for a conditional release on health grounds, if there was one. 20.     The applicant said she had never received the order and had been unaware of its existence or contents before the newspaper article appeared. 21.     According to the Government, (a) the order was one of the documents in the prison supervision court’s Petitions and Complaints file (no.   138/2003 0006), and (b) that file did not contain either an accompanying letter addressed to the forensic centre or any evidence of its having been received by the applicant or any other member of staff at the forensic centre. 22.     It is not in dispute that the order was sent to and received by the Secretariat General of Prison Institutions and the Mansilla de las Mulas detention centre. On 21 August 2012 the detention centre informed the prison court that B. was at the disposal of the forensic doctor who could make any report he or she considered appropriate. 23 .     The parties agreed that there was no evidence that the order had been communicated to the forensic medical clinic or the applicant. Correction or right of reply proceedings Information provided by the applicant in her application form 24.     On 12 September 2012 the applicant unsuccessfully asked the editor-in-chief of El País to publish a correction of the article by way of allowing her the right of reply to state that she had never received the judge’s order to travel to San Sebastián to personally examine B. so as to report on the detainee’s state of health. 25.     In late September 2012 the applicant filed a claim against the EDICIONES EL PAÍS, S.L. (“ El País ”) under the Right to Rectification Law no.   2/1984 of 26 March 1984 (see paragraphs   81-85 below), asking for a correction to the false information since, as she claimed, she had never received the order to examine B.. She claimed to have prepared her medical expert report in strict compliance with the decision of the surveillance court of 16   August 2012, which did not contain an order to personally examine B. 26 .     El País contested that claim, providing the first-instance court with the following documents in particular: (a)     a copy of the order ( providencia ) of Judge P. dated 17   August 2012 (see paragraph   19 above), which did not specify the recipient and had not been signed by a judge; and (b)     a document which, according to El País , was a copy of an official letter dated 17 August 2012 ( oficio, hereinafter “the accompanying letter”) which read: “I enclose herewith a decision issued by the Petitions and Complaints’ Section [of the court], so that you can proceed to execute it”. It appears that the part of the document containing the addressee had been deleted (see paragraph   35 below for details). 27.     El País argued in court that information provided to the journalist by an unspecified source indicated that the order had been placed in an envelope and pushed under the door of the forensic centre’s premises, the centre being closed because it was August. 28.     Between 13 May 2013 and 21 April 2016, the proceedings were suspended pending the determination of the applicant’s criminal complaint alleging that the documents submitted by El País as evidence (see paragraphs   32-35 below) had been altered. 29 .     On 20 May 2016 Judge no.   35 of the Madrid Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s application for a right of reply. The judge found, in essence, that (a) on 17 August 2012 the judge had ordered a personal examination of the prisoner by the forensic doctor, even though there was no evidence that the order had been received by the forensic centre; and (b) that the prison institution had, pursuant to the order, informed the court that B. had been available for medical examination. The court therefore concluded that the article had not contained inaccurate information. Information submitted by the Government 30 .     In their observations of 14 February 2023, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had successfully appealed against the decision of 20   May 2016 (see paragraph 29 above). On 29 June 2017 the 12 th Section of the Madrid Audiencia Provincial set the above decision aside on appeal and ordered El País to publish the following corrigendum in both digital and printed editions: “Contrary to what was stated in [the newspaper El   País ], at no time did [Judge P.] order [the applicant] to carry out the court order by going to San Sebastián to examine [B.] personally ... in order to draw up a report on his state of health”, and that she had drawn up the medical expert report “in strict compliance with the order issued on 16   August 2012 by the [prison supervision court] ....”. The Madrid Audiencia Provincial also ordered El País to pay the costs of the first ‑ instance proceedings. 31.     The appellate decision of the Audiencia Provincial became final and El   País paid the costs of EUR   4,600.77. The remainder of the court order in the right of reply proceedings had still not been enforced when the Government made its observations to this Court (see paragraphs   70-72 for further details). THE Criminal proceedings brought by the applicant 32 .     In 2013 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the journalist (the author of the article) and the lawyer representing El País in the right of reply proceedings, alleging that the order and the accompanying letter of 17   August 2012 produced by them as evidence in those proceedings had been tampered with (see paragraph   26 above). 33.     The Investigating Court no.   12 of Madrid heard the journalist and the lawyer. They denied the allegations of tampering with evidence and stated that they were unaware of any “alteration” of the documents. The Investigating Court also studied copies of the reports, resolutions and documents held by the prison supervision court in relation to this case, as well as documents from the Petitions and Complaints file of the Prosecutor’s Office at the Audiencia Nacional . 34 .     In response to an inquiry from the Investigating Court, the Audiencia Nacional prosecutor advised that the accompanying letter produced by the defendants appeared to be a copy of a cover document addressed to the Alava Prison Centre, with its upper part removed. The prosecutor observed that the documents kept by the prosecutor’s office of the Audiencia Nacional were neither numbered nor underlined in the same manner as the accompanying letter put in evidence had been. The prosecutor was unaware “who and how, when, or for what reason” had put the copies of the documents (that is, the copies of the accompanying letter and the order) on the prosecutor’s file. In any event, it was evident to the prosecutor that the accompanying letter was the same as the one addressed to the prison, albeit without the upper part (above the cross on the crown of the national coat of arms). 35 .     By a decision ( auto ) of 4 August 2015 (as rectified on 11   September 2015) the Investigating Court no.   12 of Madrid declared that the cover letter produced by the defendants in the right of reply proceedings had been tampered with ( encuentra manipulado ). The upper part of the letter, where the recipient(s) of the document would be indicated, had been deleted. The Investigating Court provisionally dismissed the case and discontinued the proceedings, as it could not be established that either the lawyer or the journalist had altered the document, or that they had been aware of the modification. The applicant’s civil claim in respect of damage to HER reputation 36 .     In 2016 the applicant brought a civil claim against the newspaper in defamation. She sought compensation of 100,000 euros (EUR) and a court order for the newspaper to admit that the information about her which had been published in the article in the digital and paper versions was inaccurate. She further sought an immediate order to take the article down from the internet and order for all possible measures to be taken to make the news inaccessible by the use of search engines and to publish any judgment in her favour in the newspaper’s digital and paper versions. The judgment of the first-instance court 37.     On 28 November 2017 Judge no.   51 of the Madrid Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) dismissed the applicant’s claims as follows. 38 .     In the first-instance court’s view, its task was to analyse whether the article had violated the applicant’s right to her reputation, or whether it was protected by freedom of expression or freedom of the press, in the light of the principles developed in the case-law of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Spain. The court reiterated that freedom of expression prevailed over privacy rights ( derechos de la personalidad ) as long as the information was truthful, was a matter of public interest or relevance, and was not expressed unnecessarily offensively or harmfully. 39 .     The first-instance court had no doubt that the information published by El País was of public interest, not so much because of the person concerned (that is, the applicant), but because of the subject matter – the release on health grounds of an ETA member convicted of several serious criminal offences including the kidnapping of a police officer. 40 .     The first-instance court further found, in essence, that the “truthfulness” criterion was met, and the journalist had displayed due diligence in checking the accuracy of the information to be published. The journalist had referred in the article to the court order. Regardless of whether or not the applicant had been aware of its contents, that required the prisoner to be examined by a forensic doctor. Further, it was not disputed that the applicant had drawn up her medical report without examining the detainee. The first-instance court found that the key matter of disagreement in the case was whether the applicant had been notified about the order: “The [applicant claimed] that she had not received the order, that no official letter had been sent to her and that therefore she had not gone to examine the prisoner in person [but had prepared] her report in accordance with the previous orders of another judge. The journalist in his court statement said that he had checked his information; that the order [ (la providencia) ] in question was sent to him by the Press Office ( Gabinete de Prensa) ; and that his “sources” had confirmed to him that the accompanying letter had been pushed under the door of the forensic [centre], as the building had been closed because it was August. The [applicant] is therefore demanding that the media not only prove [that the court order was made] but also investigate whether the [applicant] received it.” 41 .     Turning to the evidence submitted by the applicant (that is, the two court orders of 16 and 23 August 2012 which she received and said she had complied with, see paragraphs   9-10 above), the first-instance court observed, in particular, that the receipt of the court documents had been acknowledged solely by a handwritten note. Neither an entry stamp, nor an acknowledgment of receipt, or any other reliable means of acknowledging notification had been used. The court further observed that the medical expert report prepared by the applicant had been fully in accordance with the order of 17   August 2012 and indeed addressed the issues specified in that order point by point. Therefore, it was “plausible to find ( verosímil pensar ) that the journalist, at the time of writing the news item, having seen the content of the order and the report, [had] reasonably concluded” that the doctor had received the order. Moreover, the court observed that the way the legal documents had been received in the forensic centre had been “entirely irregular”, consisting only of a simple handwritten note of the date of receipt. The court further noted the applicant’s submissions that she had been the only doctor assigned to the courts and sections of the Audiencia Nacional and that she had written all the reports requested by that court. 42 .     Turning to the proceedings for the publication of a correction, the first-instance court observed, inter alia , that at no point had it been established in those proceedings whether there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to her reputation. The court further observed that “the right of reply was no more than a possibility for a person to submit a counter ‑ opinion about a published fact, without having the burden of proving the inaccuracy of the news item”. 43 .     The first-instance court concluded as follows: “To sum up, the news item merely reflected two objective facts: that there was an order for the [medical] examination of the detainee; and the production of a medical report which is in all respects consistent with the content of the order, but which ... was prepared [from an analysis] of [other] medical reports. From these two facts, the newspaper concluded that the [applicant] “ignored” the judge’s order to examine B. The reasons why [she] had not gone in person to examine the prisoner have ... not been clarified in any of the proceedings. [The applicant] insists that she had never received either the order or the accompanying letter. From the documents submitted [by the applicant herself] it can be inferred that an accompanying letter was not always necessary [the court referred in its order of 23   August 2012 to a handwritten note “received”, see paragraphs   9-10 above], and that the way of proving the receipt of official letters depend[ed]... exclusively on the [applicant] herself writing "received" and adding a date in pencil ... Such “receipts” did not contain the name of the [applicant], [but only] an illegible signature. It was therefore extremely difficult for the [journalist] to check how whether the [applicant] had become aware of the order. In fact, even the investigation carried out by the Investigating Judge No. 12 of Madrid was unable to clarify that. There is a statement of the Secretary of the Juvenile Court with Prison Surveillance Functions [from which it can be inferred that] there was no official [accompanying] letter sent to [the applicant] ordering her to comply with the order of 17   August 2012. [However], there is a record of notifications indisputably made (by fax), and there is also a copy of a letter addressed to the General Secretariat of Prisons. To summarise, in order to [be protected by] Article 20(1)(d) of the Constitution [see paragraph   80 below], information published by journalists must be truthful, must relate to matters of public interest because of the person concerned or the subject matter, and must not be unnecessarily offensive towards those affected by the information. [These] requirements were met in the present case, [which this court finds from] the [submissions of the parties], and it does not appear that the news item treated the applicant in an unnecessarily offensive manner.” The applicant’s appeal and the decision of the Audiencia Provincial 44.     The applicant appealed, arguing that the journalist had not acted in good faith and had not taken all necessary steps to check the accuracy of the defamatory statements in question. The seriousness of those statements called for the highest possible degree of fact-checking before publication. She argued that, as a consequence of the publication, she had been subjected to “moral and professional lynching”, and that the article had accused her of a serious lack of professional diligence – that is, a failure to obey a lawful court order – which could constitute a criminal or administrative offence in Spain. The lower court had incorrectly addressed the veracity of the information issue. Veracity could not be equated to the journalist thinking it was “plausible” that the applicant had received the court order. Information reported in the article was not true, nor had it been properly checked. The journalist’s explanations had not been plausible or sufficient. The fact that the medical report corresponded to all aspects of the order was irrelevant. The structure and contents of the report reflected that it had been prepared in accordance with section 92(3) of the Criminal Code (see paragraph   92 below) and other relevant domestic regulations. 45.     El Pais argued, in essence, that the newspaper merely reported two objective facts: the existence of a court order to perform a medical examination of B. for preparing a medical report, and the fact that such report had been prepared by the applicant without examination of the patient. 46.     The prosecutor’s office supported the applicant’s appeal. It pointed out that the information about the applicant’s failure to comply with the court order was widely disseminated, given the media impact of the news outlet and that the disputed information damaged the applicant’s reputation and constituted a clear attack on her professional reputation. In the prosecutor’s view, the first-instance court’s judgment was not in line with the legal doctrine established by the higher domestic courts. The prosecutor also pointed out the applicant’s submission that she had not received the order of 17   August 2012. However, the article had stated that the applicant had been aware of the court order but had failed to comply with it. That fact should have been verified ( debio ser contrastado ) before publication. Contrary to the first-instance judge’s findings, it was not sufficient to say it was “certainly plausible” ( cierta verosimilitud ), since the journalist had merely stated that, according to his “sources”, the accompanying letter had been pushed under the door of the forensic clinic because the building was closed in August.” 47 .     On 27 December 2018 the 14 th Section of the Madrid Audiencia Provincial quashed the first-instance judgment on appeal and granted the applicant’s claim against El País , ordering it to pay the costs of the proceedings. The appellate court summarised the facts, including the findings reached in the criminal proceedings (see paragraph   35 above); noted the final decision given in the right of reply proceedings (see paragraph   30 above); described the parties’ statements and the evidence given in the various proceedings (see, in particular, paragraphs   26   and   27 above); and observed that it appeared from the facts that the forensic centre had not had a reliable system of acknowledging receipt of documents and notifications at the time. 48 .     The appellate court found, in so far as relevant, as follows: “At the time [of the events of the case], the state of health of [B.] and [the issue of] his conditional release were matters of public interest, and from the standpoint of journalistic logic, the fact that there was a court order for a medical examination that had not been complied with and a subsequent report on the state of health of the prisoner, was enough[.] However, [given the importance of the case], we have to go a bit further: why was the order not complied with[?] According to the [academic dictionary of the Spanish language] the verb ignorar has two meanings. The first [is] not knowing something or not having news of it, and the second [is] to ignore something or someone, or to treat them as if they did not deserve attention. The heading of the news item and the way it is written suggests that the verb ignorar is used in its second meaning, portraying [the applicant] as having disobeyed a court order. The final question is to decide whether the duty to check facts was [adequately complied with]. [W]e believe [that] it was not. [One of the documents] submitted by the defendant in the right of reply proceedings is the order from the petitions and complaints file ... concerning prisoner B., which requires the prisoner to be medically examined by the doctor. [The second of the documents submitted in the right of reply proceedings] is an official letter, the addressee of which is unknown, [and which] states that a copy of the order [from] the petitions and complaints file [was] attached to ensure that it was complied with. The worst part of the case is that these altered documents had been put onto the public prosecutor’s petitions and complaints file ... and there was no investigation of how, why, when, and by whom they had been put [there]. On page ..., there is a statement by the Secretary of the Court of Instruction No.   12 of Madrid, reproducing a report by the [prosecutor] stating that in the file of petitions and complaints ... concerning B. [t]here is no official letter addressed to the [applicant] requiring [her] to comply with the order of 17   August 2012 requiring the medical examination of the detainee. These facts lead [the appellate court] to the conclusion that the fact-checking was inadequate, and that the sources of information were not very accurate. The assertion based on these sources that the forensic centre of the Audiencia Nacional was closed in August and that, for that reason, the order [to examine B.] was communicated by means of placing it in an envelope and pushing it under the door does not align with [the fact that] the accompanying letter ordering the examination has been proven to have been faked, [or] with the two reports on B.’s state of health that were issued in August.” 49 .     The appellate court further observed that the applicant had requested the right of reply, but that the correction had not been published, which had triggered her formal pursuit of her right of reply. The court found that the “publication of [the] reply would have been sufficient to repair the reputation ... of the [applicant]”. 50 .     The appellate court further found that the damages claimed by the applicant were reasonable in view of two factors: (a) the circulation of the El   País printed edition and the number of visits to its digital edition, and (b)   the defendant’s having “disregarded the opportunity to resolve [the matter] once it knew about the error.” The cassation proceedings in the Supreme Court Cassation appeal by El País 51.     El País lodged a cassation appeal, alleging that the appellate judgment had erred in law in dealing with the requirement of “truthfulness” (veracity) of the information was concerned. El País submitted that the news report which had become subject of the proceedings was part of an extensive media coverage of B.’s case. The applicant, along with other court experts who had intervened in the domestic proceedings relating to his release, had played “a prominent role” in that case. The disputed item of information referred to a very specific fact, namely the court order for a doctor to examine B. in person. 52.     In El País ’s view, the journalist had fact-checked the information diligently. There was indeed a court order for the applicant to examine the detainee. The applicant had issued her report without going to San Sebastian to examine B. She had not been able to clarify why she had not examined him personally ( El Pais accordingly assessed the text of the corrigendum it had been ordered to publish in the right of reply proceedings outlined in paragraph   30 as inaccurate). The first-instance court had rightly concluded that the applicant had been aware of the order, as the conclusions reached in her medical report had been fully in line with its contents. If there had been an internal communication error between the court and the doctor, that was irrelevant for the assessment of the veracity of the information. The error had been an exceptional circumstance that was almost impossible to check. An expectation that the journalist would check for that would significantly exceed the general duty of professional diligence. The reasons why the forensic doctor had not gone in person to examine the prisoner had not been established after several rounds of court proceedings. Against that background, there was no basis for the appellate court’s finding that the matter could have been remedied by the publication of a “report” on what had happened, as that remained unknown. The copy of the accompanying letter submitted by El   País in the domestic proceedings could not be assessed as “altered”. A part of the document had indeed been removed. However, this was a common practice aimed at protecting the anonymity of journalists’ sources. 53.     As regards the use of the word “ignored” in the heading of the news item, El   País argued that the word “ignoring” clearly did not have the same meaning as “disobeying” but obviously had a different scope and different connotations. Even had the applicant been unaware of the order (whether that was true or not), that would not have been incompatible with her having “ignored” the court order. Citing domestic case-law, El   País reiterated that the proportionality requirement did not imply that headlines should sacrifice brevity or other distinctive traits of journalistic language. They rather had to be read in the context of the article and assessed together with the contents of the news item. Lastly, El País submitted that the amount of compensation it had been ordered to pay had been punitive in nature, arbitrary and grossly disproportionate; that the order had lacked a legal basis; and that the reference to the circulation of the newspaper had been irrelevant and that that could not be a sole or key criterion for the determination of the amount of compensation. The applicant’s reply and the prosecutor’s position 54.     The applicant argued in reply that the appellate court’s findings had been lawful and accurate. Firstly, in her view the appellate court’s interpretation of the title of the news item had been consistent with the text of the article which said that the applicant had not gone in person to examine the detainee “despite the fact that [the Judge] had ordered her to do so”. Secondly, the Audiencia Provincial ’s interpretation of the requirement to check the facts had not been unreasonable. The appellate court had rightly found that, given the public importance of the information, the journalist had had to go “a bit further” in checking the facts. The applicant reiterated the domestic superior courts’ case-law, according to which the level of diligence expected from the media varied depending on seve