<p>Faktagranskning: Mats Bergquist, Docent i Statsvetenskap</p>

Este trabalho procura debater a liberdade constitucional de informação sob um viés não usual ao direito constitucional brasileiro. Seu ponto de partida é a proteção ao sigilo de fonte para jornalistas profissionais, consagrada pelo texto constitucional. Essa regra parece pressupor uma distinção possível e clara entre jornalistas e demais cidadãos. Mas como compreendê-la em um cenário atual no qual: a) as condições tecnológicas permitem que qualquer cidadão, a um custo baixo ou quase inexistente, publique informações para um número indistinto de pessoas, e; b) o Supremo Tribunal Federal tenha reconhecido que o Estado não pode exigir a obtenção de um diploma de ensino superior para diferenciar a categoria de jornalistas? Logo, o pano de fundo deste trabalho é a possibilidade de o Estado diferenciar jornalistas de demais cidadãos com relação à concessão de prerrogativas para o exercício da liberdade de informação. Nos Estados Unidos, esse é um debate relevante ao menos desde a década de 1970. São apresentados seus principais aspectos: por um lado, a jurisprudência de sua Suprema Corte, que se negou sistematicamente a diferenciar direitos próprios à liberdade de imprensa (Press Clause) em comparação com a liberdade de expressão (Speech Clause); por outro, as abordagens funcional e institucional à liberdade de imprensa, composta respectivamente por autores favoráveis e críticos àquela linha jurisprudencial. Ao final, a partir de uma perspectiva crítica e da adoção de fundamentos jurídicos, busca-se analisar a regra constitucional do sigilo de fonte e propor parâmetros interpretativos para sua aplicação. / This paper seeks to debate the constitutional freedom of information under an aspect not common to Brazilian constitutional law. The departure point is the reporters privilege, constitutionally protected for professionals by law. That rule seems assume a possible and clear distinction between journalists and other citizens. But how to understand it under a scenario where: a) the technological conditions allow any citizen, with very cheap or barely existing costs, to publish information for an indistinct number of people, and; b) the Supreme Federal Court has recognized that the State may not license journalists by a college degree diploma? Thus, the background subject of this paper is the possibility that the State differentiates journalists from other citizens in regard to the concession of prerogatives for the exercise of the freedom of information. In the United States, this has been a relevant debate at least since de 1970s. The main aspects are presented: on one hand, the Supreme Courts case law that has systematically denied to differentiate exclusive rights deriving from the Press Clause in comparison to the Speech Clause; on the other hand, the functional and institutional approaches to freedom of the press, respectively representing the authors favorable and critics to that judicial construction. Finally, taking on from a critic perspective and adopting legal fundaments, it seeks to analyze the constitutional rule of the reporters privilege and to propose interpretative standards for it.

Le présent mémoire se penche sur la constitutionnalité des articles 517 et 539 C.cr., qui prévoient des ordonnances de non-publication à l'enquête sur mise en liberté provisoire ainsi qu'à l'enquête préliminaire. L'auteur présente d'abord les modalités d'application de chacune de ces ordonnances. Suit ensuite un portrait de la jurisprudence sur la constitutionnalité de ces deux dispositions. L'auteur applique par la suite aux dispositions le test élaboré dans l'arrêt Oakes. Il conclut que l'objectif des dispositions, qui consiste à assurer un procès équitable à l'accusé, est urgent et réel. L'auteur constate ensuite que le critère du lien rationnel n'est pas satisfait puisque, ordonnance ou pas, les informations préjudiciables pour un accusé seront de toute façon dispersées dans le public, notamment grâce aux nouvelles technologies de l'information. À défaut de profiter d'informations fiables retransmises par les médias, le public devra se concentrer sur les rumeurs non vérifiables propagées par le Web. Le critère de l'atteinte minimale est également examiné. L'auteur estime que ni les récusations motivées, ni le changement de venue, ni les directives aux jurés ne sont en mesure de remplacer des ordonnances de non-publication. Enfin, l'auteur estime que les articles 517 et 539 C.cr. échouent le critère de proportionnalité entre les effets préjudiciables et les effets bénéfiques. En conclusion, comme alternative aux interdits de publication, l'auteur propose une réforme du processus de récusations motivées. / This thesis examines the constitutionality of sections 517 et 539 of the Criminal Code, which permits the judge presiding over a bail hearing or a preliminary inquiry to impose a publication ban. The author explains the way these bans are applied. He then reviews the existing case law regarding the constitutionality of these sections of the Criminal Code. In the second part of his thesis, the author applies the Oakes test to both sections. He first deals with the contextual factors to be considered in the analysis. He then examines the objective of the sections, which is to protect the right of the accused to a fair trial. He concludes that this objective is pressing and substantial. On the other hand, the rational connection test is not satisfied, because even with a ban, the prejudicial information will still be transmitted to the public through new technologies such as the Internet. If no information is allowed to be published by the journalists, the public will have to rely solely on rumours and possibly false news circulating on the Web. The minimal impairment test is also examined. Neither challenge for cause, nor change of venue or judicial instructions can replace effectively publication bans. Applying the last part of the Oakes test, the author fails to find that the deleterious effects of publication bans are proportionate to their salutary effects. In conclusion, the author briefly proposes a reform of the challenge for cause process.

Le présent mémoire se penche sur la constitutionnalité des articles 517 et 539 C.cr., qui prévoient des ordonnances de non-publication à l'enquête sur mise en liberté provisoire ainsi qu'à l'enquête préliminaire. L'auteur présente d'abord les modalités d'application de chacune de ces ordonnances. Suit ensuite un portrait de la jurisprudence sur la constitutionnalité de ces deux dispositions. L'auteur applique par la suite aux dispositions le test élaboré dans l'arrêt Oakes. Il conclut que l'objectif des dispositions, qui consiste à assurer un procès équitable à l'accusé, est urgent et réel. L'auteur constate ensuite que le critère du lien rationnel n'est pas satisfait puisque, ordonnance ou pas, les informations préjudiciables pour un accusé seront de toute façon dispersées dans le public, notamment grâce aux nouvelles technologies de l'information. À défaut de profiter d'informations fiables retransmises par les médias, le public devra se concentrer sur les rumeurs non vérifiables propagées par le Web. Le critère de l'atteinte minimale est également examiné. L'auteur estime que ni les récusations motivées, ni le changement de venue, ni les directives aux jurés ne sont en mesure de remplacer des ordonnances de non-publication. Enfin, l'auteur estime que les articles 517 et 539 C.cr. échouent le critère de proportionnalité entre les effets préjudiciables et les effets bénéfiques. En conclusion, comme alternative aux interdits de publication, l'auteur propose une réforme du processus de récusations motivées. / This thesis examines the constitutionality of sections 517 et 539 of the Criminal Code, which permits the judge presiding over a bail hearing or a preliminary inquiry to impose a publication ban. The author explains the way these bans are applied. He then reviews the existing case law regarding the constitutionality of these sections of the Criminal Code. In the second part of his thesis, the author applies the Oakes test to both sections. He first deals with the contextual factors to be considered in the analysis. He then examines the objective of the sections, which is to protect the right of the accused to a fair trial. He concludes that this objective is pressing and substantial. On the other hand, the rational connection test is not satisfied, because even with a ban, the prejudicial information will still be transmitted to the public through new technologies such as the Internet. If no information is allowed to be published by the journalists, the public will have to rely solely on rumours and possibly false news circulating on the Web. The minimal impairment test is also examined. Neither challenge for cause, nor change of venue or judicial instructions can replace effectively publication bans. Applying the last part of the Oakes test, the author fails to find that the deleterious effects of publication bans are proportionate to their salutary effects. In conclusion, the author briefly proposes a reform of the challenge for cause process.

8. 5. 2019 Abstract Diploma thesis Political and Civic Rights in Cuba in the light of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between Cuba and the European Union Adéla Chamrádová Institute of Political Science Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University 2018/2019 This diploma thesis is dealing with the compliance of human rights in Cuba related to the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement that Cuba has concluded with the European Union at the end of 2016. Every EU's trade, cooperation or political dialogue agreement with third states has to contain a so-called human rights clause. This clause guarantees that both sides comply with human rights, democracy and the rule of law principles. The objective of my thesis is, therefore, to investigate if Cuba has indeed made a progress in the area of human rights under the influence of this treaty. I focus on political and civic rights, as Cuba continues to be criticized by the international community for their long-term violation. The subject of my research will be freedom of expression and thought and right to peaceful assembly and association.