Miguel Angel Ekmekdjian v. Gerardo Sofovich, et. al. (Ekmekdjian II)
Argentina Supreme Court
315 F.C.S. 1492 (1992)

- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
[Ed.’s note: this case represents a radical shift in Argentine jurisprudence, with a starkly different result from the Ekmekdjian I case.] During an episode of a popular Argentine show, a guest made some comments regarding the Virgin Mary that were deeply offensive to Miguel Angel Ekmekdjian (plaintiff), who was a devout Catholic. Ekmekdjian wrote a letter in response to the guest’s comments and sent it to the show’s producers and its host, Gerardo Sofovich (defendants), with the expectation that the letter would be read on air. However, Sofovich never read Ekmekdjian’s response letter on air. Ekmekdjian sued Sofovich and the show’s producers, citing the right to reply guaranteed by Article 14 of the American Convention on Human Rights (the convention). Based on the Argentina Supreme Court’s reasoning in Ekmekdjian I—that the right to reply established by the convention was not yet enforceable, because the legislature had not yet acted to regulate it—the lower courts rejected Ekmekdjian’s petition. Ekmekdjian subsequently filed an extraordinary appeal with the Argentina Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (Belluscio, J)
Dissent (Levene, C.J.)
Dissent (Petracchi and Moline O’Connor, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.