INTRODUCTION Chief Justice, Your Excellency may it please the court. It is my honor to appear in this court.

I am Pacubas, Ana Emiy, I appeal on behalf of the applicant, TTV and Tanja Trotter. In this court, allow me to present my submissions in less than five (5) minutes. APPLICANT Turustein Television (TTV) and Tanja Trotter, who is the Editor-in-Chief of the TV-news and of the website, www.ttv.org. ISSUES AND ALLEGATIONS In establishing the case for the applicant, the following issues are presented. That the decision of the Turustein Counsel for Media Ethics in requesting TTV to broadcast an apology in relation to the cartoon and article which was considered insulting to the Primes Minister and Vice-prime Minister, an apology that was not necessary since TTV as well as Tanja Trotter did not violate or transgress any law with regards to the cartoon and article posted in their website. Furthermore, in relation to that, the cartoon and article posted in the website did not violated their right to human dignity in view of the fact that the caricature or cartoon and article posted classified as a political satire. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS In paragraph 11 of the Problem, on 22 of June 2003, after the Prime Minister and the VicePrime Minister declare their protest in expressing their complaint involving the cartoon and article, TTV was then asked by the Turustein Council for Media Ethics to broadcast an apology, the public apology was then aired in 24 June 2003. 1 DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENT The cartoon posted by TTV in their website was a Political satire. Political satire as stated in paragraph 13 of the Problem is a form of sarcastic expression and social comment in which, by exaggerating and distorting reality, is intentionally provocative. 2 The request of the Turustein Council for Media Ethics was clearly not necessary since TTV and Tanja Trotter did not violate the Prime Minister and Vice-Prime Ministers right to privacy as TTV and Tanja Trotter was only lawfully exercising their right to freedom of expression. Moving forward to my submissions Your honor,

1 2

Problem 11 Problem 13

1. TTV and Tanja Trotter did not incur any violation with regards to the privacy of the Prime Minister and Vice-Prime Minister since their actions was a lawful exercise of their freedom of expression, a right provided in the art. 13 of the Turustein Constitution and Art.19 of ICCPR. In the instant case, paragraph 13 of the Problem, states that freedom of expression and press freedom is as guaranteed by Art.13 of the Turustein Constitution and Art.19 of the ICCPR. This protects information and ideas that offend, shock or disturb and that there is little scope under these articles for restrictions for political speech or on debates on question of public interest. At the same time, the limits of permissible criticism are wider with regard to the government than in relation to a private citizen: in a democratic society the actions or omission of the government must be subject to close scrutiny of public opinion.3 The Prime Minister and Vice-Prime Minister are public officials; therefore, their actions in relation to holding positions are subject to public scrutiny. TTV and Tanja Trotter were merely exercising their freedom of expression. And being public officers, it is only logical to have the Prime Minister and Vice-Prime Minister as a subject since it is inherently a high position in public office. According to Sec.3 of the ICCPR: The Exercise of rights provided for in the paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but theses shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputation of other: (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (public order), or public health or morals. 4 TTV did not incur any of the limitations provided by the ICCPR. The cartoon and articles were not subjected to their personal lives or capacity of the Prime Minister and Vice-Prime Minister but rather, more on their position being public officials. Therefore TTV and Tanja trotter were not guilty of any violations alleged by the Prime Minister and Vice-Prime Minister. Thus, the public apology was in any way not necessary at all and that the Turustein Council for Media Ethics has no right to compel TTV and Tanja Trotter to make a public apology regarding the cartoon and article posted in the TTV website. CONCLUSION The abovementioned arguments are submitted for the applicant, Tanja Trotter and TTV, establishing their right to exercise freedom of expression thus having the right to post the cartoon in question without subsequent liability as such is not in violation of any law nor the right to privacy of the Prime Minister and Vice-Prime Minister both of which are public figures very prone to criticism and scrutiny by
3 4

Problem 13 Sec. 3 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

the public. Moreover, the applicant having such right, should not have been compelled to issue a public apology as it was not necessary at all having done no wrong nor any violation of law.