|
The
attachment is not the full transcript of the court hearing,
but appears to be the judge's summation of what was
presented to her (allegations by the five plaintiffs - the
five members of the McCann family) for a 'cautionary
proceeding' against four respondents (the author (GA), the
publisher, the video maker, and the TV station) for
violation of various personal rights of the plaintiffs due
to the publication of the book (A Verdade da Mentira) and
the video based upon it.
It appears to contain a recapitulation of the essential
parts of what was presented to her, a legal analysis and a
decision based upon that analysis, but the starting point is
the judge's opinion on various 'matters of fact' that she
was asked to consider.
Most of those points pertained to facts about the author and
other respondents, but the critical judgement is that, in
the hearing, based on documents submitted and the
depositions of five unidentified witnesses - I do not know
if they were actually present in court, but it is possible -
it was proved that the respondents intended to broadcast the
book and the DVD world-wide for financial, commercial and
social gain, [thereby] deepening the suffering of the
parents and making more difficult the search for the missing
child.
That appears to be the nub of the matter before the court.
The essence of the five witness depositions is given as:
- witnesses 1 to 4 expressed personal opinions, deductions
and convictions [I read this as meaning that what they had
to say could not be proven by empirical measurement];
- but they did reveal first-hand knowledge of the growth in
difficulties and obstacles to the search for the missing
child that arose from each new edition of the book, news of
a new edition, interviews by the author, and broadcast of
the DVD;
- the 3rd and 4th witness depositions, in particular,
demonstrated the intensification of the suffering of the
parents that arose from each new promotion of the
proposition [thesis] of the author - whether through the
book, DVD or interviews - and its repercussions on the
search, and the potential for the twins to gain knowledge of
it.
- the 5th witness essentially provided evidence on the
extent of the publications around the world.
====
The above is my understanding of the CONCLUSION in the first
five pages
The section headed RELATÓRIO (Report) on pages 6 through 11
appears to reflect the
allegations, requests and matters of fact presented by the
five plaintiffs.
The section headed 'DE DIREITO' on pages 11 through 15
appears to be the judge's legal analysis, albeit that some
parts may have come directly from the legal argument
presented by plaintiff counsel, but that would not be
unusual if such argument was pertinent and well-phrased.
In the analysis, the conflict between fundamental rights of
freedom of expression and freedom of the press on the one
hand versus the personal rights of the plaintiffs on the
other was determined in favour of the plaintiffs [the
McCanns]. That, to me, is the essential judgement.
The crux appears to be that the judge had to [had no option
other than to ] conclude that the proposition by the author
(and promoted by the other respondents) that the parents had
been involved in criminal acts, even negligence, had not
been proved in the inquiry that is now archived, and so, for
purposes of this particular hearing, the fundamental legal
rights of the respondents have to give way to the
fundamental legal rights of the plaintiffs.
====
That brings us to the DECISION on page 15.
As we get to the DECISION there are two important things to
note:
- this
hearing is NOTHING to do with defamation or libel - which is
the Principal Action to be heard at some date in the future.
It limited itself to deciding which of two sets of
fundamental rights in Portuguese Law should hold sway in the
specific circumstance presented, which circumstance was that
each rendition of the proposition of a dead child and the
hiding of her body impeded the search for a live child, and
this impediment caused additional suffering to the parents
who are behind the conduct of that search.
The request
was made solely to stop further renditions of that
proposition in its various forms.
- the actions requested by the plaintiffs were not granted
in the manner they wanted; they were all modified in
execution.
The requested actions are shown as a) through f) on page 7,
while the DECISION is shown, in the same order and
lettering, on pages 15 and 16.
a) requested the unqualified prohibition of the sale of the
book and video and that all
remaining copies held in book stores and warehouses be
collected and destroyed.
The DECISION modified this to the RESPONDENTS being
prohibited from selling the remaining [unsold] books and
videos held in book stores and warehouses, and that those
[unsold] copies be collected and delivered to a depository
[i.e. for safe-keeping, not for destruction];
b) requested the unqualified prohibition of new editions of
the book and of the video, or other books and/or videos,
that defend the proposition [of illegal acts on the part of
the parents], and that are aimed at distribution/publication
in Portugal;
The DECISION modified this to the RESPONDENTS being
prohibited from doing those
requested things;
c) requested the unqualified prohibition of transferring
rights of publication and of authorship over the contents of
the book or of the video, or of other books and videos of
the same proposition, for publication anywhere in the world;
The DECISION modified this to the RESPONDENTS being
prohibited from transferring such rights [that they hold];
d) requested the unqualified prohibition of citation,
analysis or express commentary, verbal or written, of parts
of the book or of the video that defend the proposition of
the death of the [missing child] or of the hiding of her
body, by [the parents].
The DECISION modified this to the RESPONDENTS being
prohibited from the citation, analysis or express
commentary, verbal or written, of parts of the book or of
the video that defend the proposition of the death of the
[missing child] or of the hiding of her body by [the
parents].
NOTE: there is a comma omitted in the DECISION after the
word 'body'(corpo), that causes the death to be
distinguishable [separable] from the hiding of the body by
the parents
e) requested the unqualified prohibition of the reproduction
or commentary, opinion or
interview in which such proposition is defended or may be
inferred.
The DECISION modified this to the RESPONDENTS being
prohibited from such actions;
f) requested the unqualified prohibition of the publication
of declarations, photographs, or other documents allegedly
connected with such book and video or such proposition.
The DECISION modified this to the RESPONDENTS being
prohibited from such actions.
=====
In ALL respects, therefore, the RESPONDENTS are prohibited
from doing certain things, but in the DECISION there is no
attempt to prohibit other people from doing those things -
provided, of course, that they do them within the scope of
their own legal rights (and duties).
I would suggest, however, that any argument, opinion or
comment as to the possible death of the missing child, or to
the hiding of the body under such a circumstance, does not
use either the book or the video as a foundation; rather, it
should look to the content of the official case file.I
reiterate that, in my understanding of it, this is not a
judgement on defamation or libel, and my understanding of
this is reinforced by the penultimate line
(the last
sentence on page 16)
which states that costs are borne by the plaintiffs pending
the principal action, i.e. the principal action - namely on
the question of defamation and libel - is yet to come.
There is no pronouncement by the judge on the libellous-ness
or defamatory-ness of the book or of the video.
Finally on page 16, the depository for the unsold copies of
the books and videos was
nominated as being the counsel for the plaintiffs. I do not
see any reference to ANY rights - including those of
publishing and/or authorship -
being transferred to that person, nor to any other person,
as part of this decision. All such rights, therefore, would
remain vested in the holders thereof at the time of this
judgement. If this were not the case then request/decision
c) above would be totally redundant.
========================================================= |
|
CONCLUSION – 09-09-2009
In this process of common injunction that is being handled
at this court and section under the number 1143/09.0TVLSB,
the Court decides to reply to the factual matter that
appears in the initial request, and that has been subject to
proof in fulfilment of the Appeals Court Decision
[article 13, in the factual segment
that appears on page 15 of said decision, articles 58 to 67
and 92 of the corrected initial request]
[1],
as follows:
Article 13: Not proved;
Article 58: Not proved;
Article 59: Proved that curricular pieces concerning the
first Defendant [2]
are published on the internet,
referring to him as an honest, structured, socially accepted
man, namely for the performance of political posts;
Article 60: Proved that the media focus hit the first
Defendant;
Article 61: Proved;
Article 62: Proved that the first Defendant knows the
meaning and the extent of an archiving dispatch within a
criminal process;
Article 63: Proved that the first Defendant knows who holds
power over the inquiry, who can open or reopen it, and under
which circumstances that can be done;
Article 64: Proved that the first Defendant knows what
defamation and injury are;
Article 65: Proved that the first Defendant knows what it
means not to be at the service of criminal investigation;
Article 66: Proved that the first Defendant has professional
experience and is of adult age;
Article 67: Proved that by divulging his thesis about the
events of the 3rd of May, 2007, in Praia da Luz, the first
Defendant, with the assistance of the three other Defendants
[3],
saw his person promoted and earned money.
Also proved that the first Defendant wished to intervene in
local political life.
Article 92 – Proved that the Defendants intend to
disseminate the book and the DVD all over the world, earning
financial, commercial and social profit, deepening the
suffering of the two first Applicants
[4] and
rendering the search for the third Applicant
[5] more
difficult.
**
For the preceding decision concerning the matter of fact,
the Court has pondered the documents that have been appended
to the process, as well as the depositions from the
questioned witnesses [6],
in the segments in which they revealed direct knowledge
about the facts that they were questioned upon. The Court
has also used judicial presumptions, namely in the answers
to articles 60 and 62 to 66.
Concerning the depositions of witnesses 1 to 4, it has to be
noted that those have been essentially characterised by the
transmission of their opinions, deductions and personal
convictions. It was nevertheless revealed that they
manifested direct knowledge of the increase in difficulties
and obstacles to the ongoing private investigation that
searches for the third Applicant, which is being promoted by
the first and the second Applicants, each time that new
editions or the announcement of future editions of the book,
interviews with the first Defendant, or divulgations of the
DVD take place.
The depositions, especially from the third and fourth
witnesses, were equally considered, concerning the direct
knowledge that they demonstrated over the intensification of
the suffering of the first and second Applicants, each time
de first Defendant’s thesis was newly divulged – whether
through the existence or the announcement of a new edition
of the book, or a new divulgation of the video or by the
occurrence of interviews – mainly due to the repercussions
that such events have on the search for the whereabouts of
the third Applicant and due to potentiating the knowledge of
said thesis by the fourth and the fifth Applicants
[7].
Concerning the fifth witness, although her knowledge of the
facts that she was questioned about comes from a set of
investigative tasks that tend to sustain the allegation that
is made in this injunction, what is certain is that,
together with the documents that have been appended to the
process, it was possible to establish that the book in
question has already been subject to a Spanish edition in
May 2009, a French one in June 2009, a German one (also for
the Swiss and Austrian markets) in June 2009, then an
Italian and a Dutch one, and Defendant ‘Guerra e Paz’ has
also launched an edition in Brazil
[8].
This is, in synthesis, the basis for the previous decision
concerning the matter of fact.
**
REPORT
The five Applicants move the present injunction against the
duly identified Defendants on page 38
[given the fact that the initial
request with the corrected numbering, which has been
appended on 20/05/2009, is being attended to],
alleging, in synthesis, that the first Defendant’s thesis
about the events that took place in Praia da Luz in May 2007
– which relate to the disappearance of the third Applicant,
which took place at that time -, which have been put into
the book that he authored, that was published by the second
Defendant, that sustains the video that was produced and
marketed by the third Defendant and was broadcast by the
fourth Defendant as a television documentary, have already
violated several rights of all of the Applicants and cause
them fear of future, serious and hardly repairable damage of
the following rights:
a) The rights of Madeleine (the third Applicant) to her
moral and physical integrity and to a fair and adequate
investigation into her disappearance, in the future;
b) The rights of Sean and Amelie (the fourth and fifth
Applicants) to their moral and physical integrity and to a
fair and adequate investigation into the disappearance of
their elder sister, in the future, as well as their right to
the reservation of private and family life and to the good
name of the family that they belong to, their right to
freedom and to security;
c) The rights of Kate and Gerald McCann (the first and
second Applicants) to their image, to their good name, to
their good reputation and to the preservation of the
integrity of their private and family life, their right to
freedom and security, the right to their moral integrity,
the right not to be treated in a degrading, cruel or
inhumane way, the right to enjoy, like any other citizen,
the guarantees of the penal process.
On these fundaments, they conclude by requesting the
determination of the following measures:
a) The prohibition of sale and the order to seize, for
destruction, the books and the videos that are still left at
shops or any other deposits or warehouses;
b) The prohibition to execute new editions of the book or
the video, or of other books and/or videos, that defend the
same already criticised thesis, and that are destined to be
sold or divulged by any means, in Portugal;
c) The prohibition to cede the editing rights or the author
rights on the contents of the book or the video, or of any
other books and videos on the same subject, for publication
in any part of the world;
d) The prohibition to cite, to analyse or to comment,
verbally or in writing, on parts of the book or of the video
that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant or of
the concealment of her body, by the two first Applicants;
e) The prohibition to reproduce any comment, opinion or
interview, where said thesis is defended or can be inferred;
f) The prohibition to publish statements, photographs, or
any other documents that are allegedly connected to said
book and video or said thesis.
According to what was established by the Appeals Court’s
Decision and considering what has resulted from the
production of evidence during trial, the following FACTS are
proved in an indicative way:
1 – On the 24th of July of 2008, the first Defendant
launched in Portugal, under edition of the second Defendant
that reserved all rights to itself, the book that he has
authored, “Maddie A Verdade da Mentira”;
2 – In that book, the first Defendant defends the thesis of
death of the third Applicant and the concealment of her
cadaver by the first and second Applicants;
3 – Said book attained 4 editions until the end of July of
2008, 9 editions until the end of August of 2008, and 12
editions until the end of September of 2008;
4 – Each edition was of 10.000 copies;
5 – Presently the book is sold out at practically all points
of sale;
6 – When said book was published, the first Defendant gave
interviews to all of the media that requested him to, namely
to RTP [9],
and defended the thesis that he presents in the book, in
those interviews;
7 – The first Defendant also gave, among others, an
interview to newspaper “Correio da Manhã”, which was
published on the 24th of July of 2008, in which he defended
the thesis that he presents in the book;
8 – At the beginning ot May of 2009, the same book was
published in France, now under the title “Maddie, L’Enquête
interdite: Les revelations du commissaire portugais chargé
de l’enquête”;
9 – The first Defendant gave countless interviews to several
media in France, including the one that was published in the
newspaper “Le Parisien” and on the matching internet site;
10 – In those interviews, the first Defendant again
mentioned the theses that he presents in the book;
11 – The book’s French edition is systematically and
profusely published on the internet, at least on:
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/goncalo-amaral-maddie-lenquete.html
hhtp://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/archive/2009/05/09/Maddie-1-enquete-interdite-en-belgique1.html
http://www.the3arguidos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=31806&sid=abe61a1c34b42a74ad5a2e50f315c20d&start=0
hhtp://twitturly.com/url/a194ef0f54f1985133b2ff092ddcf75d
http://www.bourin.editeur.fr/livre/maddie-1-enquete-interdite-les-revelations-du-commissaire-portugais-charge-de-1-enquete.html
http://www.amazon.fr/Maddie-lenq%C3%AAte-interdite-Amaral-G/dp/2849411256
http://www.decitre.fr/livres/Maddie-l-enquete-enterdite.aspx/9782849411254;
12 – Between the publication of the Portuguese edition, on
24/07/2008, and the publication of the book’s French
edition, in May of 2009, the fourth Defendant broadcast a
television programme that was produced by the third
Defendant, that reserved the possession of the corresponding
rights for itself;
13 – The first broadcast of said television programme took
place on the 13th of April of 2009;
14 – The second broadcast of this television contents took
place on the 12th of May of 2009;
15 – That programme was broadcast in Portugal at least those
two times;
16 – That programme/video is intrinsically based on the
contents of the book “Maddie A Verdade da Mentira”;
17 – In that video the first Defendant again sustains his
thesis, that the third Applicant is no longer alive, that
her death took place inside the “Ocean Club” apartment and
that the parents, the first and second Applicants, concealed
their daughter’s cadaver;
18 – At least two million and two hundred thousand people
watched that programme’s first broadcast;
19 – In late April of 2009, the DVD that corresponds to that
programme started being sold, with the title and the
subtitle «Maddie A Verdade da Mentira – Um poderoso
documentário baseado no best seller “A Verdade da Mentira”
de Gonçalo Amaral» [10];
20 – 75.000 copies of that DVD were put on sale;
21 – The DVD is publicised, at least, on the third
Defendant’s website;
22 – The first and the second Applicants are married to each
other and the parents of the third, the fourth and the fifth
Applicants;
23 – In the Criminal Inquiry in which the first and the
second Applicants were made arguidos, an archiving dispatch
was issued concerning them, as per appended copy, pages
145-173;
24 – Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of
May of 2007;
25 – There are curricular pieces published on the internet,
concerning the first Defendant, referring to him as an
honest, structured, socially accepted man, namely for the
performance of political posts;
26 – The focus of the media has hit the first Defendant;
27 – The abovementioned curricula (item 25) reveal a man who
“studied engineering”, obtained a university degree in
juridical and criminal sciences and was a PJ agent/inspector
for 27 years;
28 – The first Defendant knows the meaning and the extent of
an archiving dispatch within a criminal process;
29 – The first Defendant knows who holds power over the
inquiry, who can open or reopen it, and under which
circumstances that can be done;
30 - The first Defendant knows what defamation and injury
are;
31 - The first Defendant knows what it means not to be at
the service of criminal investigation;
32 - The first Defendant has professional experience and is
of adult age;
33 - By divulging his thesis about the events of the 3rd of
May, 2007, in Praia da Luz, the first Defendant, with the
assistance of the three other Defendants, saw his person
promoted and earned money.
34 - The first Defendant wished to intervene in local
political life.
35 - The Defendants intend to disseminate the book and the
DVD all over the world, earning financial, commercial and
social profit, deepening the suffering of the two first
Applicants and rendering the search for the third Applicant
more difficult.
OF
THE LAW
From the Applicants’ allegation, it becomes clear that they
understand that several of their rights – all within the
scope of personality rights – have already been violated by
the divulgation of the first Defendant’s thesis concerning
the events that are related to the third Applicant’s
disappearance in May of 2007. A thesis according to which
the third Applicant would have passed away on the 3rd of May
of 2007 in the Praia da Luz apartment, and her cadaver
concealed by the first and second
After the production of evidence, performed in fulfilment of
the Decision, it was established that the book that was
authored by the first Defendant
[and although after the injunction was
interposed] was in the meantime
the subject of a Spanish edition in May of 2009, a French
one in June of 2009, a German one (also for the Swiss and
Austrian markets) in June of 2009, and later on, an Italian
and a Dutch one, and the Defendant “Guerra e Paz” also
launched an edition in Brazil, facts that allow for the
conclusion that the Defendants intend to disseminate the
book and the DVD over the world, obtaining financial,
commercial and social profit (cfr. answer to article 92).
On the other hand, it resulted demonstrated that the
dissemination of those materials (book and DVD) deepens the
suffering of the two first Applicants and renders the search
for the third Applicant more difficult (cfr. answer to
article 92): each time the first Defendant’s thesis is newly
divulged, the suffering of the first and second Applicants
intensifies – whether through the existence or the
announcement of a new edition of the book, or a new
divulgation of the video or by the occurrence of interviews
– mainly due to the repercussions that such events have on
the search for the whereabouts of the third Applicant and
due to potentiating the knowledge of said thesis by the
fourth and the fifth Applicants.
Thus translates the threat of future lesions or the
worsening of those already verified to the Applicants’
personality rights.
The protection of personal integrity in its two dimensions,
physical and moral, is consecrated by the Constitution (cfr.
article 25, number 1 of the CRP
[11]),
and it should be articulated with other means for the
protection of personal rights, such as those foreseen in
number 1 of article 26 of the Constitution, that is, the
rights to personal identity, to the development of
personality, to civil capacity, to citizenship, to the good
name and reputation, to image, to word, to the reservation
of intimacy of private and family life, and to legal
protection against any form of discrimination, constituting
the fundamental seat of the designated general personality
right, as well as the direct expression of the basic
postulate of human dignity as admitted in article 1 of the
Constitution, a basic value and the first reference in the
matter of fundamental rights.
The ordinary law, on the other hand, generically names, in
article 70 number 1 of the Civil Code, the defence of
individuals against illicit threats of offences against
their physical and moral personality (from that mention and
from the precepts that are subsequent to it, one infers the
existence of a certain set of rights that are connected to
personality, as the right to image, to the reservation of
private intimacy, the right to a good name and reputation),
with number 2 foreseeing that the person that has been
threatened or offended can request the injunctions that are
adequate to the case’s circumstances, with the purpose of
avoiding the consummation of the threat or to attenuate the
effects of the already committed offence.
On the other hand, number 1 of article 381 of the Civil
Process Code, and concerning non specified injunctions,
establishes that whenever someone shows a based fear that
someone else causes a serious and hardly repairable lesion
to his or her right, that parson can request the
conservatory or anticipatory injunction that is specifically
adequate to ensure the effectiveness of the threatened
right.
By handling the preceding juridical considerations with the
established facts, the objective fulfilment of the
conditions for the establishment of the injunction that is
destined to safe keep the Applicants’ rights is verified.
Nevertheless, and just as mentioned in the Appeals Court’s
Decision, one must pay attention to an eventual conflict of
rights.
In fact, both the writing of the book, and its divulgation
and that of the thesis that is defended in it, namely
through the DVD and through interviews, configure the
exercise of freedom of expression, and as far as the third
Defendant is concerned, also that of freedom of the press
and the media.
Those rights of the Defendants, as well as those of the
Applicants that were noted above and that are at stake, have
equal constitutional standing, and therefore it is
peacefully understood that when there is a conflict in their
exercise by different holders, and because there is no
relationship of predominance of one towards the other, one
must seek within the circumstances of the specific case, the
fair measure of contraction of one of them, or even of both,
in order to render the adequate exercise of each one of
those rights viable. That solution is contained in article
335 number 1 of the Civil Code.
Therefore, taking into account that the thesis that is
presented by the first Defendant, through the adequate means
that are placed at his disposal by the other Defendants,
raises the suspicion of the involvement of the first and
second Applicants in the practice of criminal actions,
albeit in a negligent way, among the general public, and
that they, having been made arguidos at a given point in
time, saw the criminal inquiry archived in relation to them,
one has to conclude that it must be the rights of the
Defendants that cede to the rights of the Applicants.
On the other hand, the divulgation of the thesis that the
third Applicant passed away on the 03/05/2007 raises
difficulties for the investigation into what happened and
the search for her whereabouts. The contrary hypothesis that
is defended by the Applicants, that the third Applicant is
still alive, must be taken into account, and if it is
verified, then her life and her wellbeing may depend on the
search for her whereabouts, and these rights of her must
also make those of the Defendants cede.
Therefore, and having reached this point, we conclude that
the injunction is to be granted, nevertheless, and as far as
the requested measures are concerned, it has to be taken
into account that those requested under d), e), f) and,
partially, under b) are directed against an undetermined
universe of addressees, and can therefore only be granted
concerning the Defendants.
As for the compulsory pecuniary sanction, taking into
account the financial capacity of the Defendants that are
companies (to which the requested injunctions of
apprehension of books and DVDs are destined), the profits
that have already been obtained through the sale and the
divulgation at hand, and taking into account the interests
that are in conflict, we see it as adequate under article
829-A of the Civil Code.
DECISION
Under these terms and due to the exposed fundaments, the
Court grants the present injunction and, as a consequence,
decrees as follows:
a) The prohibition for the Defendants to sell the books and
the videos that are still in stores or in other deposits or
warehouses, and the obligation for the Defendants to collect
them and to deliver them to the depositary that is nominated
below;
b) The prohibition for the Defendants to perform new
editions of the book or the video, or of other books and/or
videos, that defend the same thesis, and that are destined
to be sold or published by any means whatsoever in Portugal;
c) The prohibition for the Defendants to cede the editing
rights or the authorship rights over the contents of the
book or the video, or of other books and other videos about
the same theme, for publication anywhere in the world;
d) The prohibition for the Defendants to cite, analyse or
comment, verbally or in writing, on parts of the book or the
video that defend the thesis of death of the third Applicant
or of concealment of her body by the first two Applicants;
e) The prohibition for the Defendants to perform the
reproduction or comment, opinion or interview, where said
thesis is defended or from where it can be inferred;
f) The prohibition for the Defendants to publish statements,
photographs, or any other documentation that is allegedly
connected to said book and video or said thesis.
Moreover, the Court condemns each one of the Defendant
societies to pay a compulsory pecuniary sanction in the
amount of 1000 euros for each day that the prohibitions or
the order to apprehend the books and the videos are not
respected.
The depository of the books and videos, whose collection is
ordered, is the lawyer who represents the Applicants.
Expenses by the Applicants to be attended in the main
action.
To be registered and notified.
Lisboa, DS
(The
Judge of Law, Amélia Puna Loupo)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]
This reference to an Appeals
Court decision is due to the fact that the first request for
an injunction that was filed by the McCann couple and their
children, was not granted. An appeal was filed, and the
present injunction was granted after intervention by the
Appeals Court.
[2]
The first Defendant is Gonçalo Amaral.
[3]
The three other Defendants are Guerra
& Paz, Valentim de Carvalho Filmes and TVI.
[4]
The two first Applicants are Kate and Gerry McCann.
[5]
The third Applicant is Madeleine
McCann.
[6]
The Applicants’ witnesses are mentioned here.
[7]
The forth and fifth Applicants are Sean and Amelie McCann.
[8]
The Brazilian edition does not exist, as was later clarified
during a hearing on the 13th of January 2010.
[9]
Rádio Televisão Portuguesa
[10]
«Maddie The Truth of the Lie – A powerful documentary based
on best seller “The Truth of the Lie” by Gonçalo Amaral»
[11]
Portuguese Republic’s Constitution
|
