Violation of Art. 10;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

ORG Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON live in GPE and work as an editor and journalist respectively for the DATE magazine ORG .

ORG On DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicants published CARDINAL articles ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) in which they criticised judges of ORG at length and in virulent terms for having , in a divorce suit , awarded custody of the children to the father , PERSON , a NORP notary ( notaire ) ; in DATE the notary ’s wife and parents - in - law had lodged a criminal complaint accusing him of incest and of abusing the children , but in the outcome it had been ruled that there was no case to answer .

Mr X had instituted proceedings for criminal libel against those who had lodged the complaint . ORG and subsequently ORG acquitted the defendants on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . ORG held , inter alia :

" At the present time the rulings that there was no case to answer show that the allegations have been judicially held to be without foundation .

It has not been proved , however , that the defendants acted in bad faith , that is to say with malicious intent , and they had no good reason to doubt the truth of the allegations .

Indeed , it was not only the defendants who were convinced that the allegations were true but also eminent academics , including Professor [ MA ] ... and Dr [ ORG ] , a child psychiatrist , both of whom were appointed as experts by the investigating judge , Mr [ YE ] ...

At ORG hearing on DATE ... the expert [ ORG ] confirmed on oath the content of his report .

That expert , who can hardly be said to lack experience in the field of child psychology and who studied all the evidence in the criminal case file , concluded on DATE that the children ’s statements were credible and put forward several arguments in support of that view . "

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law brought by Mr X.

ORG On DATE judges and an advocate - general of ORG , PERSON [ YA ] , PERSON [ ORG ] , PERSON [ YC ] and PERSON [ YD ] , instituted proceedings against Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON and against ORG ’s editor , publisher , statutory representative , printer and distributor in the GPE tribunal de première instance ( court of first instance ) . On the basis of Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , they sought compensation for the damage caused by the statements made in the articles in question , statements that were described as very defamatory ( zeer lasterlijk en eerrovend ) . They asked the court to order the defendants to pay nominal damages of MONEY each in respect of non - pecuniary damage ; to order them to publish its judgment in ORG ; and to give the plaintiffs leave to have the judgment published in CARDINAL DATE newspapers at the GPE expense .

ORG In order to safeguard the principle of equality of arms and due process , the defendants asked the court , in their additional submissions of CARDINAL DATE , to request ORG to produce the documents mentioned in the disputed articles or at least to study the opinion of Professors [ MA ] , [ MC ] and [ GPE ] on the medical condition of PERSON children , which had been filed with the judicial authorities . They gave the following grounds for their application :

" The issue arises whether the defendants , given the factual evidence available to them , were entitled , within the limits of press freedom , to publish the impugned criticisms of the functioning of a judicial body .

In the disputed press articles the defendants relied , in particular , on various medical reports , statements by the parties and reports by a bailiff .

Nor can it be denied that PERSON libel action against his wife was dismissed .

Now that it must be determined whether the defendants were entitled to publish the impugned press articles on the basis of the information available to them , it is essential for the proper conduct of the case that ORG , who is acting in the case under LAW of LAW , should produce to ORG the documents cited as sources in the series of articles . These documents are to be found in various court files .

Any argument as to the lawfulness of the press criticism presupposes at the least that the ORG should be able to study the opinion of Professors [ MA ] , [ MC ] and [ GPE ] on the treatment of GPE ’s children , which has been sent to the judicial authorities .

The opinion of those eminent professors of medicine was the decisive factor which prompted ORG to publish the impugned series of articles in such a forceful manner .

The views maintained by the defendants and the language and descriptions they used can not be assessed in the abstract but must be assessed in the light of these data , which go to the substance of the case .

Thus ORG held in the PERSON case ( judgment of the ORG of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) that the issue of the limits of the exercise of freedom of expression had to be examined against the whole of the background :

‘ It must look at them in the light of the case as a whole , including the articles held against the applicant and the context in which they were written’ ( paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment ) .

For these reasons ... may it please the ORG ... to hold that it is necessary , for the proper conduct of the proceedings , in particular in the light of the principle of equality of arms and due process , to request ORG to produce the documents cited in the disputed articles that appeared in the magazine ORG , or at least to study the opinion of Professors [ MA ] , [ MC ] and [ GPE ] on the medical condition of X ’s children , which has been filed with the judicial authorities . "

ORG On DATE the court ordered Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON to pay each plaintiff MONEY in respect of non - pecuniary damage and to publish the whole of its judgment in ORG ; it also gave the plaintiffs leave to have the judgment published at the applicants’ expense in CARDINAL DATE newspapers . Lastly , it declared the action inadmissible in so far as it was directed against the other defendants .

The court held , inter alia :

" The plaintiffs are obviously not challenging freedom of expression and of the press as guaranteed in ORG DATE . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the [ NORP Convention on Human Rights ] . Equally , the defendants can not dispute that this freedom is not unlimited and that there are certain bounds which can not be overstepped . As has already been set out ... , Article CARDINAL para . QUANTITY of the Convention ( article CARDINAL ) is no obstacle to bringing a civil action under LAW where the press has acted wrongfully .

Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Convention ( article CARDINAL ) expressly provides that freedom of the press ‘ may be subject to such ... restrictions ... as are prescribed by law and are necessary ... for the protection of the reputation or rights of others ... or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary’ . The need to protect the plaintiffs’ private life ( Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Convention ) ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , and more specifically their honour and reputation , means , in the case of a press article , that the press must ( CARDINAL ) strive to respect the truth ; ( CARDINAL ) not be gratuitously offensive ; and ( CARDINAL ) respect the privacy of the individual . These criteria are taken up in LAW drawn up by ORG .

In the articles in question the defendants make frequent references to the fact that the plaintiffs had allegedly erred in their judgment and had shown bias . The defendants accepted as true , without more , the statement made by PERSON former wife and her expert adviser ( Professor [ MA ] ) , although it was clearly shown in the reasons set out in the CARDINAL judgments given in the case why that statement was not reliable . More seriously still , in the articles in question the defendants expressed the opinion that the plaintiffs had to be regarded as biased , an opinion derived from the fact that they were said to belong to the influential circle of acquaintances of the notary and his father , that CARDINAL of them was the son of a gendarmerie general who in DATE had been convicted of collaboration , that they allegedly had an extreme - right - wing background and that they were friendly with each other .

The plaintiffs’ conduct was vigorously attacked by the defendants in extremely virulent terms , and the defendants clearly intended to present the plaintiffs in an unfavourable light and expose them to public opprobrium . The defendants sought to give their readers the impression that the plaintiffs were siding with the children ’s father and that their judgments were inspired by certain ideological views . To this end , the defendants needlessly reminded their readers of the wartime activities of the father of CARDINAL of the plaintiffs .

The plaintiffs rightly observed that they can not simply be put on a par with members of the legislature or of the executive . Politicians were elected and the public had to trust them . Politicians could , moreover , use the media to defend themselves against any attacks . PERSON [ a term which in NORP law covers both judges and members of ORG offices ] , on the other hand , were expected to discharge their duties wholly independently and dispassionately . Their duty of discretion meant that they could not defend themselves in the same way as politicians .

That being so , the defendants committed a fault in attacking the plaintiffs’ honour and reputation by means of irresponsible accusations and offensive insinuations . The orders sought by the plaintiffs will provide appropriate redress for the non - pecuniary damage they have sustained ... "

ORG The applicants appealed against that judgment . In their submissions of CARDINAL DATE they pointed out , among other things , that the sole purpose of the articles in question had been to criticise the functioning of the judicial system following the proceedings conducted by the respondent judges and Advocate - General concerning possible abuse and incestuous acts suffered by the children . At no time had they attacked the respondents’ private life without reference to their part in the impugned decision . Mr ORG and Mr PERSON repeated their offer to prove the facts described in the articles and asked the court to request ORG to produce the documents they had mentioned , at least those emanating from Professors [ MA ] , [ MC ] and [ GPE ] and those from the file on ORG divorce , in particular certain reports and a letter to ORG from Professor [ MA ] .

ORG The respondents sought to have the judgment of the court below upheld . In their submission , the applicants’ conduct had been all the more reprehensible and offensive as in an article that had appeared in NORP on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the applicants had not only maintained their accusations that the CARDINAL judges and ORG were biased but also criticised by name , in humiliating terms , the judges who had given the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG On DATE ORG affirmed that judgment , holding inter alia :

" ... , as submitted by the prosecution , no action must or can be taken on the appellants’ application to the ORG to ‘ request ORG to produce to ORG the documents cited in the disputed articles that appeared in the DATE magazine Humo’ , and in particular - under LAW - ‘ all the documents from ORG .

As already indicated , it is not the ORG ’s task - nor is it within its jurisdiction - to consider the case already determined by ORG , on appeal from ORG . It follows that the possible course - which is purely discretionary ( Court of Cassation , DATE , GPE ] DATE , I , CARDINAL ) - provided in LAW of ordering that the documents in question should be added to the file of the present case would serve no useful purpose whatever .

The appellants are accordingly bound to admit that they commented on a court case and besmirched the honour of magistrats without being in possession of all the necessary information , and this makes the complete irresponsibility of their malicious attacks even more flagrant .

They further aggravate their position by offering ‘ to prove the facts referred to in the relevant articles by any legal means , including an examination of witnesses , before the case is decided’ - an offer which not only must be rejected as being out of time but also clearly indicates - and this is the main point to be considered here - with what lack of care and information the articles in question were written and their accusations made , before the appellants even had sufficient evidence that they were true .

In the present case the offer in question could not in any way support the NORP case ; on the contrary , it clearly shows that the original plaintiffs’ arguments were wellfounded and it also lacks the requisite precision .

It is not sufficient for the appellants to offer - as they nevertheless do - to prove that everything they have written in the past concerning ‘ the ORG is the truth ; it has to be specified minutely , point by point , what precise and clearly described fact - ‘ precise and ORG in the words of LAW - is being offered as evidence . This is in order to make it possible for the opposing side to adduce rebutting evidence and to enable the Court to assess the relevance and importance of the facts adduced ; the appellants did not even take the trouble to comply with this requirement .

Furthermore , the ORG already has before it all the information necessary to enable it to decide , in full knowledge of the facts , whether there has really been defamation .

As regards the merits of the case , the court below , for ... relevant reasons that have not been refuted and with which this ORG agrees , held that the original claim against the appellants was well - founded because the appellants had undeniably committed a gross fault in casting serious slurs on the honour and reputation of the original plaintiffs by means of unjustified accusations and offensive insinuations .

Freedom of expression and of the press as guaranteed in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the [ NORP Convention on Human Rights ] is not unlimited ; certain bounds must not be overstepped and , as has already been pointed out , it is even possible , under DATE and DATE of LAW , to bring an action for damages where the press has acted wrongfully .

Moreover , in relation to the tort in question , Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW also refer to acts which may injure a person ’s honour or expose a person to public contempt . Defamation of public authorities is punishable in the same way as defamation of individuals . Such defamation was precisely what the original plaintiffs in this case complained of and they undeniably constitute unlawful ‘ acts’ , as referred to in LAW , ‘ that cause damage to another’ .

There is no basis for the appellants’ contention that ‘ LAW is the sole provision in NORP law which authorises the courts to restrict freedom to hold opinions with a view to protecting the honour and reputation of others ; neither Article CARDINAL , CARDINAL , of the Judicial Code nor LAW does so’ . According to that argument , the press , and it alone , is not subject to the ordinary , general rule in ORG and CARDINAL of LAW , which impose a duty on ‘ ORG to act lawfully and make everyone responsible for any damage caused through his own ‘ act’ , ‘ failure to act’ or ‘ negligence’ .

Under LAW para . CARDINAL of the Convention ( article CARDINAL ) , freedom of the press may be subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and are necessary , as in the instant case , for the protection of the reputation or rights of others or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary .

Pursuant to LAW para . CARDINAL ( article LAW , the guarantee of respect for private life requires that press articles should be truthful , must not be gratuitously offensive and must respect the privacy of the individual , criteria which were taken up in LAW drawn up by ORG and approved by the journalists of DATE newspapers in different countries of ORG in GPE on DATE and DATE , where GPE was represented by ORG .

The appellants can not in any way rely on LAW or of LAW , since these similarly make no reference to unlimited freedom of expression .

Furthermore , the appellants did not explain , and it can not be discerned , why the generally applicable concept of fault , expressly provided in Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW , should be incompatible with Articles CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Convention ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL , article DATE ) ( whose precedence is not being called into question here ) in relation to restrictions on freedom prescribed by law and the protection of private life , which is at issue here ; nor why only journalists should not be subject to those provisions .

In this connection , the ORG wholly agrees with the relevant reasons set out in the judgment of the court below , which it adopts in their entirety .

Admittedly , ORG held in the PERSON case that the NORP journalist PERSON , who was concerned in that case , had attacked Mr PERSON exclusively as a politician and consequently had not violated his right to respect for private life . In the instant case , on the contrary , that right was well and truly - indeed grossly - challenged by the appellants .

The words used and the insinuations and imputations made in the articles and passages in question are extremely virulent and dishonouring , since the original plaintiffs , referred to by name , were accused of having been biased as senior magistrats , and it was gratuitously insinuated that they had links with the ORG [ Vlaamse PERSON ] and that they came from an extreme - right - wing background and belonged to the circle of friends of the children ’s father - who was also , in the appellants’ opinion , extremely right - wing - so that the judicial decisions made by the original plaintiffs in respect of the children ’s custody were only to be expected - all this without any serious and objective evidence whatever being adduced or existing to show that the accusations against these magistrats had any factual basis .

The appellants manifestly intended to give their readers the impression that the judges and Advocate - General concerned had sided with CARDINAL of the parties to the case and , furthermore , that their judgments were inspired by certain ideological views .

Additionally , they needlessly and in a quite uncalled - for manner reminded their readers of the wartime activities of the second respondent ’s late father , which the second respondent had absolutely nothing to do with and which - despite the appellants’ opinion to the contrary - belong exclusively to the protected sphere of private life .

Even if the appellants believed that certain ideological views could be ascribed to the respondents ( views which they have failed to prove that the respondents held ) , they can not in any event be permitted purely and simply to infer from those views - even if they had been proved - that the judges and the Advocate - General were biased and to criticise that bias in public .

In none of these suspicions or pieces of gossip directed against the judges and Advocate - General who brought the original action is there a shred of truth , and the applicants even lied in their article of CARDINAL DATE ( p. CARDINAL ) when they stated that the case decided by those judges had been withdrawn from them by ORG , whereas they have now had to admit in their additional pleadings ( p. CARDINAL ) that ‘ Principal Crown Counsel at ORG refused to order that the case should be transferred to another court ( under LAW .

On DATE they announced : ‘ DATE the GPE and PERSON case took a dramatic legal turn . On an application by Principal Crown Counsel ... , ORG withdrew the X case from the GPE court and transferred it to the GPE tribunal [ de première instance ] in the hope that the ORG magistrats would adopt a less biased approach ... ’

Admittedly , they went back on this point on DATE , writing :

‘ ... Our prediction of DATE that the agonisingly slow progress being made in the GPE and PERSON case was likely to leave the case stranded in the GPE courts has come true . In the teeth of all the evidence , ORG has held that the GPE judiciary can not be accused of any bias in this incest case and that the whole case can therefore continue to be dealt with in GPE ... ’

False reports of this kind , however , caused the original plaintiffs irreparable damage , since to be accused of bias is the worst possible insult that can be levelled at a magistrat .

The exceptional virulence of the appellants’ irresponsible criticisms can probably be explained - but not excused - by certain political quarrels ( which , indeed , do not serve the interests of justice ) , as was acknowledged by the appellants themselves in DATE issue of NORP :

‘ ... If any further proof were needed of behindthescenes intrigues in the case of Mr X and of the fact that political allegiances are definitely playing a role , this ( premature ? ) leak to the press is one of the most persuasive pieces of evidence ... ’

Because of the unacceptable way in which they were attacked in the impugned articles , the original plaintiffs were shown in a particularly unpleasant light and their honour and reputation were seriously undermined by insulting statements which without any doubt went far beyond what the appellants described as ‘ their ability to take ORG .

The appellants in fact nevertheless consider their aggressive style and offensive disparagements justifiable in a little paper like ORG , which they describe as ‘ clearly critical and anti - bourgeois’ .

However , although , when ruling on the defamatory nature of contributions published in a magazine of this kind with a clear critical stance towards bourgeois society , one must not apply the same criteria as when ruling on libellous articles in an ‘ ORG newspaper , it nevertheless remains true that even in an avowedly critical magazine certain standards must be respected when criticisms are made , certain bounds must not be overstepped and it is not permissible to publish false information and unproved accusations with the clear aim of humiliating and wounding particular persons , as to do so undeniably amounts to an abuse of press freedom .

While people are certainly entitled to be ‘ anti - bourgeois’ ( ? ) , this does not authorise them to pour out pure gossip to the public - however limited their readership - by writing , for example : ‘ The Advocate - General [ YD ] has since very properly been removed from this case for having exceeded his authority’ ( ORG , CARDINAL DATE , pp . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Nevertheless , although the appellants have now , in their additional submissions , backed down and , saying that their earlier statement that ORG had been ‘ ORG had been a ‘ personal interpretation’ of the ‘ fact that at a given point he had ceased to sit’ , such an ‘ interpretation’ should impel these ‘ journalists’ - however particularly ‘ ORG their style may be - to practise their profession in future in a less unscrupulous manner .

In the DATE issue of ORG ( p. CARDINAL ) - that is to say during the present proceedings and although they had announced in the same short piece that they would be appealing - the appellants made their position considerably worse still by again accusing the original plaintiffs of bias and criticising , in similarly degrading terms , the judges who delivered the judgment at first instance , who were mentioned by name .

This article stated , among other things :

‘ ... The Vice - President , [ ORG ] , and the other judges , [ ORG ] and [ YH ] , dealt with the case carelessly ( sic ) ... We wonder whether their Lordships actually read ORG ’s submissions ... But at no time has NORP ever brought up anything to do with the judges’ private lives ( sic ) ... Clearly , the GPE judges [ ORG ] , [ ORG ] and [ YH ] did not manage to give judgment with the necessary detachment and independence on their fellow judges of ORG . They are thus adhering to the line of biased judgments ... ’

This could be interpreted as a particularly misplaced and culpable attempt to influence [ the members of this ORG ] , especially as the appellants predict , through counsel in their pleading ( p. CARDINAL ) , that no newspaper will be prepared to publish the present judgment , a step that has in any case not been sought .

As regards the question of the case having been dealt with ‘ ORG , the appellants have still not grasped that usually - and rightly - the courts must attach greater weight - as they did in the instant case - to the findings of expert witnesses that the courts themselves have appointed and who have no connection with the litigants and whose objectivity therefore can not be called in question by either of the parties rather than - as the appellants do - to the parties’ own experts , whose investigations , assessments and findings , however , form the main or even sole evidence on which the appellants believe they are entitled to rely to make their attacks .

As is unfortunately only too often to be found , notably in court cases , even excellent university professors and specialists - in the instant case CARDINAL on each side - disagree among themselves and , particularly in the fields of psychology and psychiatry , hold diametrically opposed views - of which each claims to be PERCENT certain ; this should prompt everyone - particularly journalists - to refrain from making accusations of bias - that is to say the most serious of all - against judges who have to make the final decision on issues as thorny as the custody of children , where strong passions are always aroused , and who must necessarily prefer one of the different versions put forward by the parties to the proceedings .

In the instant case the appellants dared to go CARDINAL step further by maintaining , without a shred of evidence , that they were entitled to infer the alleged bias from the very personalities of the judges and ORG and thus interfere with private life , which is without any doubt unlawful .

Furthermore , the purpose of the present proceedings is not to decide what ultimately was the objective truth in the case that the original plaintiffs finally determined at the time but merely whether the comments in issue are to be considered defamatory , which is not in the slightest doubt .

Although the appellants refused to acknowledge the fact , magistrats can not be unreservedly put on the same footing as politicians , who can always adequately and promptly defend themselves , orally or in writing , against reprehensible personal attacks and are therefore less vulnerable than a magistrat , who is neither able nor entitled to do likewise .

The status of a magistrat is radically different from that of all other holders of public office and of politicians and is in no way based on privileges or traditions but on the fact that it is necessary for the administration of justice , which entails particular tasks and responsibilities ( see the speech delivered by PERSON , formerly ORG at ORG , at the opening session of the new judicial term on DATE , ‘ FAC judiciaire , inconnu et GPE , p. CARDINAL ) .

Given the discretion incumbent upon them by virtue of their office , magistrats can not defend themselves in the same way as , for example , politicians , if certain newspapers , apparently hungry for lucrative sensational stories , attack them and drag them through the mud .

Purely political cases are precisely what most of the case - law and legal opinion cited by the appellants in this connection relates to , however , and it is therefore not relevant to the instant case .

Unlike a politician , a judge can not discuss in public a case pending before him with a view to justifying his conduct , so that [ the original plaintiffs’ ] failure to exercise their right of reply certainly can not be held against them by the appellants ( see PERSON , formerly ORG at ORG , ‘ ORG l’art de dire le droit’ , esp . p. CARDINAL ) ; this duty of discretion has again recently been referred to by ORG , CARDINAL DATE , [ Journal des Tribunaux ] DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . "

Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON applied to ORG , which dismissed their appeal on points of law on CARDINAL DATE ( Pasicrisie DATE , I , p. CARDINAL ) .

ORG In their first ground of appeal , they alleged a violation of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal , relying , in particular , on Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Convention ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . In their submission , certain passages of ORG judgment raised legitimate doubts as to the impartiality of those who had written it . This was true , for instance , of the words " a little paper like NORP " , the word " sic " in the extract from the article of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) concerning the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a number of punctuation marks , such as the question mark after the term " antibourgeois " , and the statement that the article of DATE was " a particularly misplaced and culpable attempt to influence [ the members of ORG ] " . The applicants also complained that due process had been disregarded in that , as they alleged , ORG had referred to the article of DATE of its own motion without their having been able to defend themselves on that point .

ORG rejected this ground , considering that " it could not be inferred from the mere fact that in their decision the appellate judges had shown that they preferred the arguments of CARDINAL of the parties and disapproved of those of the other parties that there had been an infringement of the statutory provision and general principles relied on in this limb of the ground of appeal " . As to the article that had appeared in NORP on DATE , the appellate judges had not referred to it of their own motion , since the respondents to the appeal on points of law had mentioned it in their submissions to ORG .

ORG In their second ground of appeal Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON complained of a violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention ( article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL ) . In finding against them on the basis of the general concept of fault in DATE of LAW , ORG had , they said , made their freedom of expression subject to formalities , conditions , restrictions and penalties not prescribed by " law " within the meaning of Article CARDINAL para . QUANTITY of the Convention ( article CARDINAL ) ( first limb ) . Furthermore , by holding that press articles must strive to respect the truth , must not be gratuitously offensive and must respect the privacy of the individual , ORG had created restrictions which went beyond what was strictly necessary in a democratic society ; public discussion of the functioning of the judicial system was of greater importance than the interest of magistrats in protecting themselves from criticism ( second limb ) . Lastly , the evidence in the file did not justify ORG finding that the articles in dispute had disregarded the aforementioned restrictions ( third limb ) .

ORG dismissed this ground of appeal , holding in particular :

" As to the first limb :

In reaching the conclusion that the appellants are liable for the consequences of their press articles , ORG based its judgment not only on the finding - partly cited in this limb of the ground of appeal - that the appellants had committed an unlawful act and that they ‘ did not explain , and it can not be discerned , why the generally applicable concept of fault , expressly provided in Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW , should be incompatible with Articles CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Convention ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL , article CARDINAL - CARDINAL)’ but also on the undisputed finding , rightly raised by the respondents , that the appellants had been guilty of defamation as defined in Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW .

ORG judgment sets out reasons ( not challenged in this limb of the ground of appeal ) for the finding that the appellants had committed a fault within the meaning of LAW .

This limb can not justify quashing the judgment of the court below and is accordingly inadmissible , as argued by the respondents .

As to the second limb :

Under LAW ( article CARDINAL ) cited above , the exercise of the right to freedom of expression may be subject to the restrictions or penalties necessary in a NORP society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary .

When asked to punish a given abuse of freedom of expression affecting members of the judiciary , the courts must endeavour to maintain a fair balance between the requirements of freedom of expression and the restrictions applicable under LAW para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the aforementioned Convention .

In the instant case ORG based its decision that the appellants had abused the freedom of expression secured in Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of ORG not only on the need to protect the respondents’ private life but also on the unchallenged grounds that the accusations made had not been proved , the criticism had been directed against named judges , the matters relied on were irrelevant to the decisions that had been taken and the accusations had been inspired by a desire to harm the respondents personally and damage their reputation .

In holding , as appears from the text of its judgment , that , ‘ pursuant to LAW para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of ORG , the guarantee of respect for private life requires that press articles should be truthful , must not be gratuitously offensive and must respect the privacy of the individual’ , ORG took the view that a balance had to be sought between the interests of a free press and private interests ; it did not thereby decide that the general interest of a public discussion of the functioning of the judiciary was less important than private interests , nor did it add any restriction to the exceptions exhaustively set out in Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) .

This limb of the ground of appeal can not be allowed .

As to the third limb :

Regard being had to the foregoing considerations , the third limb lacks any basis in fact . "

ORG In their third ground of appeal the applicants complained of ORG refusal to take into consideration all the evidence that had been before ORG and to allow them to prove by any means the truth of their assertions . In their submission , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention ( article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL ) had thereby been contravened .

ORG held :

" ORG decided not to grant the appellants’ application for leave to prove the truth of their accusations ; in particular , it refused to order that the files of the cases which had given rise to the decisions criticised in the press should be admitted in evidence .

It based its decision not only on the grounds cited in the ground of appeal but also on separate , undisputed findings : that the appellants had admitted besmirching the reputation of magistrats without being in possession of all the necessary information , which in itself constituted a fault ; that the offer to bring evidence was out of time and ineffective ; and that ORG had before it all the information necessary to enable it to decide , in full knowledge of the facts , whether there had really been defamation .

This ground of appeal can not justify quashing the judgment of the court below and is accordingly inadmissible . "

ORG The judgments against Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON related to CARDINAL articles that appeared in NORP ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The first of these , published on DATE , included the following :

DATE , the courts are due to rule in the long - running case of a well - known GPE notary who has been sexually abusing his CARDINAL young sons . The notary himself comes from a distinguished NORP family with close links to the most select financial circles in the country . All the indications are that the reputation of the father and grandfather count for more than the physical and mental health of the children . Up to now , the court has rejected , without batting an eyelid , all medical and psychiatric reports unfavourable to the notary .

How can this be ? PERSON has already written about this case in ORG , albeit in veiled terms . However , he was promptly taken to task by ORG on the ground that his report had ‘ seriously NORP the children ’s father . Yet ORG had mentioned absolutely no names . For our part , we will also refrain from mentioning the father ’s name or those of the CARDINAL underage children ( for convenience , we will call the DATE boy ‘ PERSON and the DATE ‘ FAC and give the family ’s surname as ‘ ORG ) . For the rest , we have every intention of mentioning the other names involved as this is not the first time that the GPE courts have shown a lack of independence and given extremely odd judgments .

This report is not for those of a sensitive disposition . We put the facts to a psychologist working in a centre for psychological , medical and social therapy , a magistrat , a paediatrician and CARDINAL lawyers , none of whom has anything to do with the case . Each of them , independently of the others , advised us to report on the case in the interests of the children .

After DATE was born , things started to go wrong within the family . The husband was having affairs and even had another home . Divorce proceedings are filed in DATE . The mother is awarded interim custody of the children ; the father is given DATE access . At DATE the children return home after spending DATE with their father ; their mother finds them in a state of total exhaustion . Her paediatrician , Dr [ ME ] , diagnoses them as having been overtaxed . While playing , the elder boy tells a story from which it is apparent that his father has raped him . Dr [ ME ] is notified and advises the mother to consult a forensic medical examiner .

The same thing happens on DATE .

Following her paediatrician ’s advice , the mother tries to consult a forensic medical examiner , but he advises her to see a general practitioner first . There is no answer when she rings Dr [ ME ] , so she turns to the duty doctor , [ MF ] . He finds that the elder boy has an ‘ irritation of the anus’ and refers the mother to a paediatrician in GPE , Dr [ MG ] . He in turn observes the following injuries to the elder boy : ‘ slight anal fissure , pronounced redness around the anus , rectal smear showing presence of FAC . TIME , at his request , Dr [ ME ] , the paediatrician , re - examines the children and , given the seriousness of the situation , refers them to Dr [ MH ] , of ORG .

On the basis of these medical reports , amongst other things , Judge [ YI ] of the GPE tribunal de première instance , acting on an urgent application , decides on CARDINAL DATE to suspend the father ’s right of access .

However , on DATE ORG of ORG restores the notary ’s right of access , although the children are not to spend TIME at his home and access has to take place in the presence of the grandparents .

The nightmare begins , not only for the children , but also for their mother .

On DATE , for the first time in DATE , the notary has an access visit . At TIME he picks up the children in GPE , returning them to their mother at TIME In a report the mother , shocked and bewildered , says : ‘ State of the children : distraught . PERSON ( aged CARDINAL ) lies down on the ground and sobs . PERSON ( aged CARDINAL ) sits down apathetically on a chair . He has visible clinical injuries : a very painful mouth , which he can not close , severe swelling of the lower lip and problems with his eyes ; CARDINAL of his upper teeth come out at once ; he also has a swelling of the neck below the left ear , a reddish irritation of the cheeks and scratches on the left cheek.’ Her lawyer urges her to report the matter to the police at all costs , but she thinks there is no longer any point . In her statement she writes , despairingly , ‘ I did not want to , seeing that the gendarmerie were so sympathetic to the family and that I had already discovered from experience that the gendarmes did not take me seriously where the children were PERSON

The mother ’s despairing protests are to no avail . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the father rapes his children again .

Enough is enough . On DATE , at the request of NORP ORG , Detective Sergeant PERSON interviews little Jan. A tape recording of the interview is filed with ORG . We have seen the transcript of this interview . In childish words , but coherently and without contradicting himself , PERSON describes sexual acts performed by his father on him and on his brother , who is even younger . The content of this interview is far too sensitive for us to reproduce it here .

The mother no longer has any alternative . Since her urgent request for a renowned expert to be appointed has twice been rejected , she herself calls in the child psychiatrist [ MA ] , a professor at ORG . On DATE he examines the children and finds that during DATE of DATE the father has again ill - treated and raped his children . According to Professor [ MA ] ’s findings , the children ’s story essentially corresponds to what is stated in the mother ’s complaint . Moreover , the children reveal certain details to him which even the mother has not mentioned and which her children manifestly can not have invented . Professor [ MA ] concludes : ‘ We are convinced that the children ’s visits to their father are manifestly likely to have an adverse effect on their future development . It is already clear that the immediate effect of access is that the children are extremely upset and disorientated ; after DATE spent with their father , they present as anxious and aggressive . If these visits continue , we fear that both children may develop problems , in the nature of mental illness in the case of the elder and , in the case of the younger , a tendency to regress , with arrested development . We therefore request that the children should undergo a thorough psychiatric examination ; that all the parties , including the father , should be interviewed ; and that , pending this examination , the father ’s right of access be temporarily ORG

On DATE Professor [ MA ] sent a detailed report on the case to ORG [ ORG ] and ORG [ YD ] . It is an impressive document recording the results of a number of psychiatric examinations of the children in the form of interviews ( both with and without the mother present ) . The children were examined both immediately after an access visit and at less stressful times during DATE . Professor [ MA ] concluded : ‘ The CARDINAL children confirm , independently of each other , the various types of sexual abuse which have been inflicted on PERSON Could the mother have coached the children in these stories ? Professor [ MA ] says ‘ DATE ’s version of events always coincides with his mother ’s . I see this in itself as an indication that DATE ’s story reflects real experiences . A child of CARDINAL does not in fact yet have the intellectual capacity , in the context of a guided interview , to faithfully reproduce , exactly as it has been told to him , a story which he has been " fed " . Furthermore , there were times when PERSON replied to very specific questions with equally specific answers , which he had never given his mother ( and which his mother had therefore never mentioned ) . Thus when asked whether " he bites the willy when it comes into his mouth " , he answers , very specifically : " I ca n’t , because he ( the father ) puts his fingers between my teeth . " I do not consider that a DATE child is capable of inventing so specific a response , nor do I believe that such specific responses could have been " prepared " in advance by the mother.’

On DATE Professor [ MA ] sent a supplementary report to ORG [ ORG ] and ORG [ YD ] . In it the child psychiatrist confirms his earlier findings with the aid of even more convincing arguments and again calls , insistently , for a judicial investigation and a further expert psychiatric report . But to no avail . The unthinkable happens : DATE ORG of ORG of Appeal grants PERSON custody of his children .

The court holds , inter alia : ‘ An expert opinion is not required and , indeed , is not desirable in that the expert would inevitably find himself faced with the issue of fault , which must be left to the courts alone to decide.’ Those responsible for this extremely odd judgment are [ YA ] ( the presiding judge ) , [ YC ] and [ ORG ] ( the other judges ) and [ YD ] ( ORG ) .

In DATE , pursuant to the custody award in his favour , the notary has the children staying with him ; they are again raped . In a tape - recorded interview DATE tells Professor [ MA ] that his Daddy has done ‘ the same ORG again , that Daddy ‘ PERSON him and hit him on his tummy and that he was n’t allowed to tell anyone about it . Jan does n’t know how many times his father has raped him - ‘ several times , I ca n’t count them’ .

Professor [ MA ] sends his umpteenth letter on the matter to Principal Crown Counsel [ ORG ] , stating , without mincing his words : ‘ In an emergency the ORG is bound to intervene under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ... It is impossible and unacceptable for CARDINAL children to remain exposed to an extremely dangerous situation as a result of a court decision.’

All Professor [ MA ] ’s findings are subsequently confirmed in ‘ an expert PERSON by PERSON [ ORG ] , a child psychiatrist and psychoanalyst appointed by the investigating judge [ YE ] of the LOC tribunal de première instance . The following few extracts from Dr [ ORG ] ’s report may suffice : ‘ ( CARDINAL ) After a little embarrassment Jan nevertheless finds it fairly easy to talk about his experiences with Daddy . His clearest memory is of the events of DATE . He describes how Daddy sometimes used to sit on him , how Daddy used to put his sexual organ into his anus , or sometimes his mouth , and weewee . He says that Daddy threatened him , saying that he would saw PERSON and PERSON in DATE , and really hurt DATE , if he said anything about it all . He says that Daddy did n’t act like that when Daddy and PERSON were still together , Daddy just used to hit him ; ( CARDINAL ) Jan describes these experiences fairly readily and there are no contradictions in what he says . However , he presents as shocked and embarrassed when recounting certain things . He blushes and sometimes protests vigorously that Daddy was hurting him . He does not give the impression of making things up or merely seeking ORG

Psychoanalysis of DATE ’s emotional life reveals , moreover , that the little boy is constantly anxious and traumatised . The findings concerning the younger child are similar . According to Dr [ PERSON ] , ‘ His [ PERSON ’s ] fantasies create a strong impression that there has been sexual abuse by the father and that his unconscious is trying to assimilate these uncomfortable impressions.’

In DATE little PERSON is again interviewed by CARDINAL detective sergeants and his ( female ) schoolteacher . The interview takes place in PERSON ’s usual classroom , in the presence of the headmistress . The child repeatedly confirms what has happened to him . The interview was transcribed verbatim and the tape filed as an exhibit at the NORP tribunal de première instance .

How can a father reach the point of committing such atrocities against his own children ? In his report Professor [ MA ] says : ‘ The problems between husband and wife became more serious after DATE was born . It was then that GPE , for the first time , overtly displayed his sympathies with PERSON . Thus , for example : ·

The family had to live according to PERSON ’s principles : women do not count - at most , they are instruments of procreation . Anyone who fails to become an " Übermensch " ( superman ) had better die . An " Übermensch " can legitimately lie and be dishonest . [ X ] is in fact awaiting the coming of a new PERSON . His whole way of life is dominated by that . ·

The children were to be brought up in PERSON ’s doctrine . They were made to give the NORP salute ; they were taught not to play but only to fight and make war . The children were to venerate their father just as the NORP people venerated PERSON at the time ; their mother is merely an intruder in the PERSON family . ·

Lastly , it is worth noting that PERSON has also declared on several occasions that he possesses supernatural powers and can crush anyone who opposes him . In particular , he says " We are leeches , we squeeze someone like a lemon , then we drop them . " He certainly feels very powerful . He has also spoken to the children on several occasions about his " supernatural powers " , saying that he was going to change DATE into a brown sheep and leave him in a field and that he was going to change little PERSON into an owl . He also used to talk to the children a lot about skeletons and skulls . As a result , little PERSON once asked his mother out of the blue " not to put him under the ground in a box".’

Professor [ MA ] ends his remarks on the father thus :

‘ His manifest sympathies with PERSON and his regime , and his fantasies concerning his own supernatural powers and omnipotence reveal , at the very least , in my opinion , a pathological personality . I accordingly consider that a much more thoroughgoing judicial investigation and psychiatric report are imperative in this case.’

The PERSON family ’s almost DATE contacts with the legal world are not enough to explain how he has remained almost immune . The large network of contacts which the family has woven over DATE is proving useful in this respect , especially their contacts in extreme - right - wing and/or NORP nationalist circles . For example , members of the PERSON family are militants in ORG , the Marnixring , the PERSON , the Vlaamse ORG ( an offshoot of Were Di ) , the Nationalistich PERSON GPE ( NJSV ) and PERSON . It is a well - known fact that the PERSON family gives financial support to the ORG . In DATE they helped create the ‘ new’ VMPO under PERSON , and at the time of the ORG trials they launched an appeal through ORG for members to make a financial contribution in support of ‘ CARDINAL of young NORP people facing ridiculous penalties and FAC . Witnesses confirm that the cellar of the X family ’s house is decorated with NORP swastika flags , the ideal décor for nostalgic little ‘ ORG parties . Equally remarkable are the X family ’s efforts in support of apartheid . CARDINAL of the members of the family was even a founder of the pro - NORP club GPE . Why is this network of contacts so important in the notary ’s incest case ?

Most of the judges of ORG , who awarded custody to the notary , also belong to extreme - right - wing circles . Judge [ ORG ] is the son of a bigwig in the gendarmerie who was convicted in DATE of collaboration : he had , in close collaboration with the ‘ Feldgendarmerie’ , restructured the NORP gendarmerie along NORP lines . [ ORG ] is no less controversial as a magistrat . During the judicial investigation into the ORG training camps in the LOC , he managed , in the teeth of all the evidence , to sustain the theory that the photographs of the training camp had nothing to do with the ORG but came from NORP neo - NORP .

Another judge in this incest case is [ YA ] ; she is the President of ORG . During the ORG trial , over which she presided , the organisation was acquitted on the charge of constituting a private militia . This judgment was subsequently reversed by ORG .

And then there is Principal Crown Counsel [ ORG ] , whom Professor [ MA ] has bombarded with reports denouncing the sexual abuse of the children . It just so happens that ORG [ ORG ] has the same political sympathies as the PERSON family . He was one of the founders of GPE but had to resign after a question was asked in ORG . He is still a member of the Marnixring and of the FAC in GPE , with both of which the PERSON family maintains very special links .

Since the very beginning of the investigation the gendarmerie too have played a dubious role . The abused children and their mother have consistently been treated like dirt , whereas the notary accused of incest and his father have been treated with the greatest consideration . Is it a coincidence that the PERSON family maintains contacts with several of the ( present or past ) bigwigs of the gendarmerie : former Lieutenant - General [ ZC ] ( GPE and the PERSON ) , General [ ORG ] ( the Marnixring ) and General [ ZE ] ( the Marnixring and PERSON ) ?

The children are not in good shape . They are receiving treatment and , according to well - informed sources , are still ‘ at ORG . There are CARDINAL possible solutions . Either the prosecuting authorities have the courage , in the light of recent events and findings , to prosecute the notary or else ORG must begin new proceedings with a view to restoring custody to the mother . This last point is not unimportant since PERSON has been summoned to appear before ORG on DATE on the grounds that she has twice attempted to keep the children with her at the end of an access visit .

In the meantime , the mother and her parents have been duly acquitted on appeal in proceedings instituted against them by the notary for making a defamatory witness statement . They had already been acquitted at first instance . There are CARDINAL possibilities : either the mother ’s complaint is defamatory or it is not , in which case the notary is guilty of incest . There is no other possibility . "

Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON published their second article on CARDINAL DATE . It included the following :

On DATE Humo published in issue no . CARDINAL an article that caused a sensation : ‘ ORG authorised in Flanders’ . In that article PERSON , a notary from a distinguished NORP family with close links to the highest financial circles in the land , was accused of having repeatedly raped and beaten his little boys , PERSON and DATE Those allegations were supported by a number of medical and psychiatric reports . Despite the evidence , the notary was awarded custody of the children .

In the report , we paid due attention to the dubious role played by the gendarmerie and the network of extreme - right - wing contacts maintained by the PERSON family , whose tentacles have reached the GPE law courts . This network of contacts is principally centred on staunch brown organisations like the ORG , GPE , ORG and the Marnixring . We also showed how Judges [ ORG ] , [ YA ] and [ YB ] - who saw to it that the father gained custody - fitted into and around these shady movements .

From the large number of letters we have received , it appears that CARDINAL PERSON is shocked by such warped justice . The same question comes up again and again : what kind of a country are we living in ? In the meantime , we have obtained even more information about what some of the most highly placed circles have been allowed to get away with , hand in hand with their lackeys in the courts and the gendarmerie .

Humo had hardly come off the presses when PERSON personally telephoned one of the authors of the article to say , in a threatening tone : ‘ I am not a pederast . I am not a paedophile . The time will come when you will apologise to ORG And then he hung up .

In the course of the legal proceedings , PERSON has devoted himself to making even more brutal intimidation attempts . For instance , he assaulted one of his children ’s uncles in broad daylight on the PERSON in GPE . When the children ’s mother was acquitted of libel , he hurled abuse at her counsel within the precincts of the GPE law courts and in front of other people . His own counsel had to intervene to calm him down . CARDINAL of the doctors who had found evidence of sexual abuse received a registered letter threatening him with criminal libel proceedings unless he withdrew the findings in his examination report . CARDINAL other doctor has been bombarded with letters containing the crudest threats . The journalist covering ORG hearing on DATE was pursued by the notary when he went out for some fresh air during a brief adjournment . The reporter had no choice but to escape by running between the fairground stalls of the PERSON fair .

The management of ORG and of the PERSON publishing house have also been put under strong pressure . The PERSON family were tipped off that an article was about to be published concerning the incest case . What happened ? The printing was held up for hours , but the article was nevertheless published .

This kind of brutal pressurising seems to ‘ work’ very well within the system of justice . After the article was published , a mass of new information came in from all sorts of quarters . This unique incest case has been gathering notoriety for quite some time , not only in the professional circles of paediatricians and child psychiatrists but also in ORG offices , the youth courts and children ’s refuges . Thanks to the fresh data , we now have an even better picture of how often and how treacherously the courts have manipulated the case - with , up to now , CARDINAL apparent aim : to promote , not the welfare of the children , but that of the notary .

Likewise accepted were the results of an TIME ’s questioning by Detective Sergeants [ ORG ] and [ ZG ] , during which PERSON was once again forced to withdraw his accusations . PERSON , who was on the spot when Jan came out , wrote in ORG : ‘ He started crying , sobbing . He was completely distraught . Shaking with sobs , he said that he had been questioned again by CARDINAL men , that he had said that none of it was true because he had been afraid and that he did n’t want to go home to his father ’s but wanted to stay with his mother . And he clung to his ( maternal ) grandmother , crying his heart CARDINAL What credibility can such an interview have ? CARDINAL of the statements obtained under duress certainly does not fit : according to [ interview record ] no . CARDINAL , PERSON stated that he had never seen his father naked . The notary himself told PERSON : ‘ It is said I used to stand around naked in front of them . There were evenings when the children would come rushing into the bathroom while I was having a bath . When that happened , I would send them out straight LOC Interviewed by [ GPE ] , a psychiatrist , the notary , anxious to defend himself , was even more categorical : ‘ Prior to the divorce , there were a few times when the children came upon X naked in the bathroom . It is understandable that the children ’s attention was particularly attracted to the genitals.’

Is it also a coincidence that Detective Sergeant [ ZG ] and his wife were the notary ’s guests for GPE lunch ? ·

In DATE , following a private meeting with ORG [ ORG ] and ORG [ YD ] , Professor [ MA ] , a well - known child psychiatrist , is informally given the job of studying the criminal case file in detail . To this end , ORG office sends him the various typescripts and tapes of the questioning sessions . Professor [ MA ] ’s conclusions are contained in a number of reports sent to ORG and ORG . His provisional conclusions are contained in a report of CARDINAL DATE - just in time , as judgment is due to be given on DATE . Principal Crown Counsel [ ORG ] knows that this supplementary report is being drafted , and what happens ? Out of the blue , ORG sits DATE and awards custody to the notary , ‘ without taking into account the documents filed by Professor [ MA ] after the close of the hearing’ . Was ORG informed that Professor [ MA ] ’s report , which was very unfavourable to the notary , might be filed before the close of the hearing , and is that why ORG sat DATE ? What is more , not all Professor [ MA ] ’s reports were filed after the close of the hearing . In fact , ORG had CARDINAL other reports by Professor [ MA ] at its disposal , all of them to the same effect . So the judges are lying in their judgment . On DATE the case again comes before the court , and this time the division relies on a totally different argument in order to dismiss Professor [ MA ] ’s reports : ‘ Despite what he ( Professor [ MA ] ) appears to believe , he has not been appointed by ORG at this ORG to assist the ORG in any way in relation to this ORG There are only CARDINAL possibilities : either Professor [ MA ] was given Principal Crown Counsel ’s office ’s tapes so that he could study them , or else he stole them and must be prosecuted and convicted . If he has not been appointed by the court , Professor [ MA ] is not authorised to be in possession of documents from the criminal file . The courts are therefore once again using dirty tricks to give a veneer of honesty to an inexcusable judgment . ·

On DATE , to general astonishment , the President of ORG of ORG , PERSON [ YA ] , together with her fellow judges [ ORG ] and [ YC ] , award custody to the notary who stands accused of incest . However , he can exercise his right of custody only under the supervision of his parents . Here we find ourselves faced with the most tortuous reasoning : either the notary is to be wholly trusted as far as his children are concerned and he can have custody ; or he is not to be trusted and the children are at risk with him . PERSON [ YA ] , however , opted for a hypocritical judgment . If the notary has to be supervised by his parents , he is obviously not trustworthy . And yet he is given custody . Can anyone make head or tail of this ? ORG had already moved in this direction . At the hearing on DATE the notary ’s parents had been asked whether they would be willing to take on this onerous responsibility . To which , of course , they said ‘ yes’ . Coincidence or no , it was the only time that the notary ’s parents attended a hearing . That fact makes it look very much like a put - up job . Had they been told in advance that this question was going to be put to them ? ·

The grandparents are not the only ones to have been given information in advance . On DATE , DATE before judgment was officially given , the notary was waiting to pick his children up from school . He already knew that ORG was going to award him custody . How could that be ? ·

In the previous article , we mentioned the mother ’s complaint that the detectives constantly twisted her words or simply did not write down what she said . That is not all . Statements by eyewitnesses have also been falsified ... ·

At a certain point the investigating judge in GPE , Mr [ YE ] , a former ORG [ ORG ] councillor for PERSON , appoints Dr [ PERSON ] as a ( medical ) expert . Dr [ LOC ] comes to the same conclusions as Professor [ MA ] : PERSON and PERSON have been sexually abused . Dr [ PERSON ] warns the investigating judge unequivocally : ‘ It is important to avoid aggravating the father ’s psychological problems and turning him into a confirmed homosexual or ORG Despite this , on DATE [ YA ] and her fellow judges [ ORG ] and [ YC ] confirmed the custody order in favour of the father . It is the most cowardly judgment we have ever read . The children ’s mother is blamed for not having filed a copy of the report by the expert [ ORG ] , ‘ with the result that it is not possible to examine its contents’ . But how could the mother have filed this report ? She is not even entitled to consult it , let alone to study it . In GPE the law prevents anyone from obtaining any information so long as a judicial investigation is under way , because the investigation is secret . ORG expressly acknowledges in its judgment that the judicial investigation is still under way , and yet PERSON [ YA ] blames the mother for failing to file this report ! When it is for Principal Crown Counsel ’s office to file an expert ’s report ! Despite the fact that the investigating judge [ YE ] has been in possession of Dr [ PERSON ] ’s report since DATE , we read in ORG judgment that ‘ Principal Crown Counsel ’s office did not consider it necessary to inform ORG fact’ . Why did Principal Crown Counsel ’s office refuse to forward this crucial expert report to ORG ? Because it was too unfavourable to PERSON ? However that may be , PERSON [ YA ] put her name to a mass of legal nonsense . ·

On DATE PERSON publishes his first article on the incest case under the title , ‘ ORG goes mad . A young woman fights for her ORG . Very shortly afterwards ORG [ GPE ] summons PERSON by telephone . As ORG comments in his second article , on DATE , ‘ It is rare for a judge or ORG to summon a journalist to an interview in connection with pending legal proceedings.’

The following extract from ORG article is also telling : ‘ When I asked why the court had not appointed CARDINAL experts to look into the case from the psychiatric , medical and forensic points of view , ORG replied , and I quote his exact words , " These kids ( i.e. PERSON and PERSON ) have already had to drop their trousers too much for all sorts of examinations . The best thing is to leave them in peace . " When I retorted that the court had , however , appointed an expert ( PERSON is referring to Dr [ PERSON ] ) and that his report had barely been raised if at all , presumably because it contained damning findings as regards the father , the ORG replied : " It is not true that the expert report ordered by the court damns the father . In any event , I do not know what it says . Besides , the man ’s findings are not valid - he completed his examination in DATE . " ‘ What crass bias on the part of the Advocate - General [ YD ] is revealed in those quotations . And what on earth could have made him take a journalist to task in this way ? That is not one of his duties . The Advocate - General [ YD ] has since very properly been removed from this case for having exceeded his authority and he has been replaced by the Senior Advocate - General [ YK ] .

There are also a few positive developments . On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the DATE judgment of ORG , which had acquitted the mother on the charge of removing the children from the notary ’s custody . The important thing about that case , apart from the mother ’s acquittal , is that the court duly took into account the evidence of Professor [ MA ] and the court - appointed expert [ ORG ] , who both testified under oath at the hearing that the children had indeed been sexually abused . The bench in this case was composed of judges other than [ YA ] , [ ORG ] and [ YC ] , and ORG was not [ ORG ] . "

ORG The applicants published their third article on DATE . It contained the following :

In this article we reproduce photographs , drawings and quotations which we would have preferred not to publish . Most of these documents have been in our possession from the outset , but we did not want to run the risk of being accused of sensationalism . The courts are likewise in possession of this irrefutable evidence , and it is precisely because ORG and ORG refuse to have regard to it that we find ourselves obliged to publish it .

The astonishment , anger and incredulity our readers feel are fully shared by us . Astonishment that such a thing is possible ; anger because it is allowed ; and incredulity because the ultimate guarantee of our democracy , an independent system of justice , has been undermined at its very roots . This is why , for the sake of the children PERSON and DATE , we are publishing evidence which we would rather have left to rot under lock and key in cupboards in our archives .

ORG Guy Mortier

ORG Editor

On DATE a ORG judge , PERSON [ YL ] , made an interim order in the scandalous incest case involving an GPE notary . As everyone knows , this tragedy is being played out in the most highly placed financial spheres in the country , against the background of extreme - right - wing circles in GPE . The GPE notary is accused by his wife of having sexually abused his CARDINAL little boys , whom we are calling PERSON and DATE , of having physically ill - treated them and of continuing to illtreat them . ORG judge has now decided that the father should be awarded custody of his children , or rather should retain custody , since he had already been given it , in defiance of any concept of justice , by ORG . Yet the mother , who has not been accused of anything , and who has already been twice acquitted on a charge of libelling the notary , is not allowed to see her children more than once DATE .

This inexplicable judgment once again stands reason on its head . The case file is getting thicker and thicker and contains numerous medical certificates , horrifying drawings by the children of being raped by their father , photographs of anal irritations and marks left on the children ’s bodies after blows from a cudgel - not to mention detailed psychiatric reports on the children : CARDINAL by the court expert [ ORG ] , CARDINAL by Professor [ MA ] , an eminent PERSON paediatrician , and CARDINAL , including a very uptodate one , by Professor [ MC ] , who recently examined the children in the greatest secrecy . Each time , it emerges clearly that the CARDINAL children have been sexually and physically abused . Why does ORG judge [ YL ] refuse to take account of this solid evidence in her judgment , especially as not one of the medical reports questions that there has been physical abuse ? Does PERSON family really have so much influence and money that the GPE courts are incapable of giving an independent ruling ?

It is not for the press to usurp the role of the judiciary , but in this outrageous case it is impossible and unthinkable that we should remain silent . Up to now , we have dealt with this incest case as sensitively as possible . Now that the courts have definitively taken a wrong turning , we feel obliged , in the interests of the children , to reveal more details , however horrible and distasteful they may be for the reader .

On what evidence did ORG judge [ YL ] base her interim order ? According to an article ( the first of several ) in PERSON , the source of which appears to be the notary himself , [ YL ] allegedly based the interim order on a report by CARDINAL experts she had appointed . According to PERSON , that report makes it clear that ‘ there can never have been any question of any sexual PERSON . The least that can be said is that PERSON has been misinformed ( indeed , it has since gone back on its first article ) . What exactly is the truth ?

CARDINAL court - appointed experts , Dr [ PERSON ] , Dr [ MJ ] and Dr [ MK ] , had PERSON and DATE for observation during DATE at the Algemeen Kinderziekenhuis Antwerpen ( " the ORG " [ a paediatric hospital ] ) . Their report is not yet ready and therefore has certainly not yet been filed . ORG judge and the parties have nothing in writing from them . ORG judge [ YL ] has therefore rushed a decision through even before the experts’ report is finished . This procedure in itself appears extremely suspect . But what is worse is that it leaves the mother completely defenceless . Since there is nothing official on paper , she can not appeal against ORG judge ’s decision .

Secondly , contrary to what is suggested , the CARDINAL doctors referred to are not independent experts . Dr [ MJ ] and Dr [ MK ] work under Dr [ ORG ] at the ORG . It is therefore difficult for them to challenge their superior ’s findings . At the ORG these CARDINAL doctors are not known for being the kind to put a spoke in their boss ’s wheel .

Thirdly , there is the question whether it was advisable to put Dr [ ORG ] in charge of the team of experts . We do not wish to prejudge the report before knowing what it contains , but is it not singularly unfortunate that a person belonging to the same ideological camp as the extreme - right - wing notary should have been appointed in this case , which is already so politicised ? Dr [ PERSON ] is married to the daughter of [ ZH ] , who was a governor during the war . Readers will also remember that PERSON family has a very close relationship with ‘ ORG circles . Dr [ ORG ] also boasts , in front of hospital staff , that he supports the apartheid regime in GPE , just like PERSON family . This is the same Dr [ PERSON ] who , some time ago , treated a maladjusted child by enrolling him in the extreme - right - wing Vlaams PERSON ( ORG ) , just to teach him some discipline . Everyone is entitled to their political opinions , but in this sensitive case it would have been reassuring to see a less politically charged expert appointed .

Just as inexplicable is the fact that ORG judge [ YL ] keeps PERSON ] on as ORG officer attached to the court . Judge [ YL ] has to rely very considerably on the child protection officer for all her information , and therefore also for her view of the case ; yet we have already disclosed that PERSON knows PERSON ] well . Moreover , that fact appears in an interview record dated DATE . In this interview the notary repeatedly cites PERSON ] as one of the people whom the courts can ask to testify to his basic kindheartedness . Is it really impossible to remove from this case everyone who has ideological or friendship ties with the PERSON family ?

How does the notary defend himself against his children ’s accusation that in DATE he beat PERSON with ‘ a spiked PERSON ? In a very confused way . It emerges from a transcript of the children ’s story and a bailiff ’s report that he beat PERSON on DATE That day , the notary and his little boys were visiting Dr [ MJ ] . In the presence of his father , PERSON told the doctor some very compromising things about him . As soon as they got home , the father started beating PERSON . DATE , the notary went to see Dr [ MJ ] on his own and , strangely , said not a word about his son ’s injuries . It was not until DATE , when the photographs were sent to the relevant authorities , that he came up with a story about PERSON having fallen downstairs . Why did he not say this at the outset ? The children confirm to Professor [ MC ] that PERSON was beaten and that he did not fall downstairs at all . So the notary changes tack . On DATE he calls in a bailiff who is a friend of his and who draws up a report according to which the children deny everything . Strangely , it is not the bailiff but the father himself who questions his little boys . So this report is worthless .

On DATE the notary comes up with yet another idea . A Dr [ ML ] issues a certificate stating that he can find no injuries . Which is quite possible , since DATE have gone by in the meantime . Why does the notary have the fact that there are no injuries certified DATE , when he originally stated that the injuries were caused by a fall downstairs ?

The latest version is that Jan hit PERSON . This figment of the imagination comes from ORG judge herself . There ’s bias for you .

The ill - treatment which occurred in DATE was not an isolated incident ( as we have already indicated on several occasions ) . As early as DATE Dr [ MG ] sent the following results of his examination of CARDINAL smear tests to a forensic medical examiner , Dr [ PERSON ] : ‘ Apart from amorphous matter , epithelial and mucous cells , I observed , in CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL samples , a structure with a triangular head on a long , more or less straight tail , which matches the description of spermatozoa . I observed the presence of CARDINAL such structure in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL samples , and QUANTITY in the third.’ Other doctors also made the same findings . Subsequently , Professor [ MA ] and the court expert [ ORG ] reach the conclusion , independently of each other , that PERSON and PERSON have been sexually and physically abused . The latest report is by Professor [ MC ] . In order to supplement an earlier report , this expert examined the children on CARDINAL occasions DATE and CARDINAL May CARDINAL - the elder without his mother present , PERSON normally in his mother ’s presence because at the beginning it was practically impossible to examine him without her . As Director of ‘ Kind en Gezin in Nood’ [ ‘ Children and Families in Need’ ] , CARDINAL of the departments of PERSON [ ORG ] , Professor [ MC ] is one of the principal authorities in the field . In order to remain entirely uninfluenced in his work , he expressly decided to refuse any form of payment . His report contains the most horrific findings . According to it , the children have been beaten not once but several times with a spiked cudgel . This abuse is , moreover , inflicted as a form of ritual . Candles are lit ; sometimes , the father wears a brown uniform and the cudgel has a ‘ sign of the devil’ on it . Through the children , Professor [ MC ] was also able to discover where the father took his inspiration from . He found the sign of the devil in Volume I of ORG ( ‘ ORG ) ( ! ) , entitled ORG barst in de Ronde Tafel ( ‘ The cleft in the Round Table’ ) . The sign is accompanied by the following text : ‘ This is the symbol of ORG , an unknown magician and Grand Master of Black Magic ! Even before the Round Table was created , he went away and no one knows where he is DATE ! He devotes his exceptional knowledge and power to everything that is evil and negative ! His sole objective is to sow confusion and destruction . He is a symbol of the violence which reigns in these times over humanity and justice!’

Professor [ MC ] does not mince his words in his report : ‘ By way of conclusion , it can be said that PERSON is the victim of repeated sexual and physical abuse and that his brother PERSON is subjected to the same abuse to a lesser degree but , under very strong psychological pressure , is becoming increasingly psychologically disturbed , hence the drop in his school marks and the occasional inconsistencies in what he says in different interviews . In the interests of both children a court order should be made immediately to remove them completely and permanently from their father ’s orbit . Any further delay would be medically unjustifiable.’

Appended to the professor ’s CARDINAL reports are very precise descriptions of the children ’s injuries , the statements made by the children , sinister drawings by PERSON and DATE of sex scenes with their father ( often represented with horns ) , and photographs . Both reports are in the hands of the experts [ ORG ] , [ MJ ] and [ MK ] . Judge [ YL ] also has them . Just as she has Professor [ MA ] ’s CARDINAL reports and the report by the court expert [ ORG ] . How can PERSON [ YL ] maintain that there is no evidence ? Do the children have to be beaten or raped before her eyes before she believes it ?

Similar accusations by the children against their father were also subsequently recorded by Professor [ MA ] , the court expert [ ORG ] , the CARDINAL detective sergeants [ ORG ] and [ ZG ] in the presence of PERSON ’s schoolteacher , and , lastly , Professor [ MC ] . On the other hand , there is CARDINAL retraction of the statements in an interview ( of which there is only a single , confused minute on tape ) carried out by Detective Sergeant [ ZJ ] , since suspended , who intimidated DATE with a weapon ; CARDINAL in an interview with Detective Sergeants [ FAC ] and [ ZG ] , at the end of which Jan broke down completely ( as PERSON happened to witness ) ; and CARDINAL retraction made by DATE to Professor [ MC ] , in his father ’s presence .

The crucial question remains : is any mother capable of inventing all this ? Even more to the point , would CARDINAL young children - they will be CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively this DATE - be capable of keeping up their accusations for over DATE if those accusations had been invented and forced on them by their mother ? And when could the mother have coached her children in accusations such as these ?

It should not be forgotten that since DATE the notary has had custody of the children by order of ORG of ORG . For DATE the father has had a great deal more influence over these children than their mother , who has the right to see her children only from time to time - a right of access with which the notary has frequently not complied .

What is more , if the notary has such a clear conscience , why does he declare war on anyone who puts legal or other obstacles in his path ? Why has he already threatened so many people in connection with this case ? In this article we shall mention only the most recent threats and acts of intimidation .

The case file also contains the report of an interview Professor [ MA ] had on DATE with ORG [ ORG ] and ORG [ YD ] . We realise how delicate it is to quote from letters that were not intended for publication , but needs must when the devil drives . Professor [ MA ] describes how the interview went : ‘ After I had discussed my problem and my request , namely that CARDINAL experts should be appointed , I quickly realised that Principal Crown Counsel wished to proceed with the case impartially and without prejudging the issues , but that Mr [ YD ] already had a very clear idea of what should be done - " The children ’s story was made up , perhaps fed to them by the mother , and the children should be entrusted to the care of their grandparents , with the father also being involved in the process . " Mr [ YD ] brushed aside my request for an expert report rather brusquely . In his view , judges had far more expertise than doctors in this field , and subjecting the children to further expert investigations and interviews could only do them more harm . Principal Crown Counsel was much more balanced in his response and considered that an expert report was indeed called for . Moreover , Principal Crown Counsel expressed serious reservations about Mr [ GPE ] ’s suggestion . He said that the children ’s paternal grandfather , to whose care Mr [ YD ] proposed entrusting the children , was , and I quote , " mad " . At every reception at which he encountered PERSON , he would see PERSON senior explaining , very clearly and without attempting to disguise his meaning , that PERSON should come back to this country . He added that this impression that the grandfather was " mad " was shared generally by all the guests at such receptions . And he expressly told PERSON [ YD ] that he would consider it totally unjustified to entrust the children to the care of their paternal grandfather.’

Despite being in possession of this preliminary information , the GPE courts entrusted the children , at first instance , to the care of the notary under the supervision of his ‘ mad’ father . In the course of the meeting with Professor [ MA ] , ORG [ ORG ] also cast doubt on the notary ’s probity . Professor [ MA ] gave the following evidence in his own defence before ORG [ ORG ] : ‘ He ( Principal Crown Counsel ) described how PERSON had been made a notary , against the advice of the judicial bodies , on DATE in office of the late Mr [ ZK ] ( then Minister of ORG ) and that , furthermore , in a very short space of time ( a few years ) he had succeeded in transforming an almost defunct practice into one with an official profit of MONEY DATE . He obviously doubted whether a notary could make such an DATE profit by legal and honest means in view of the property crisis at the time , and thought he remembered that PERSON had already been the subject of legal proceedings at the time in connection with his activities as a ORG

He was right . In DATE the notary was even suspended by ORG . ORG office ( once again ! ) took no account of that penalty . In the meantime a fresh criminal complaint has been lodged against the notary alleging forgery .

The worst thing is the notary ’s publicly expressed NORP sympathies . A statement taken by NORP ORG shows that he calls the genocide of CARDINAL NORP an ‘ NORP lie’ . At his wedding the notary and his father gave the NORP salute and struck up the ‘ PERSON at the top of their voices .

But the notary goes much further . He wants to bring his children up according to PERSON ’s principles . That is why they must learn to bear pain and to endure humiliation and fear . PERSON himself described a Hitlerite education :

‘ My educational philosophy is tough . The weak must be beaten and driven out . My élite schools will produce young people whom the world will fear . I want young people to be violent , imperious , impassive , cruel . That is what young people should be like . They must be capable of bearing pain . They must not show any weakness or tenderness . Their eyes must shine with the brilliant , free look of a beast of prey . I want my young people to be strong and beautiful ... Then I can build something new.’

There is little to add . Except to say that it is high time that , in the interests of the children , the medical certificates , the reports and evidence produced by the court expert , the bailiff and the child psychiatrists should at last be taken seriously and that a decision in this case be given on the basis of facts and not on the basis of the influential status of CARDINAL of the parties . Public confidence in the judiciary is at stake . "

The article was illustrated with what the applicants described as photos of injuries sustained by " Wim " in DATE , CARDINAL drawings said to be by " Jan " and another said to be by " PERSON " ; it also contained a transcript of part of ORG [ ORG ] ’s alleged questioning of " Jan " on DATE .

ORG On DATE the fourth article by Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON appeared . It read as follows :

DATE the GPE and PERSON case took a dramatic legal turn . On an application by ORG [ ORG ] , ORG withdrew the X case from the GPE court and transferred it to the GPE tribunal [ de première instance ] in the hope that the ORG magistrats would adopt a less biased approach . It is certainly none too soon . The battle between the legal and medical professions in the PERSON and PERSON case had reached a climax . In a final attempt to make the GPE magistrats see reason , CARDINAL eminent experts sent a joint letter to ORG [ ORG ] , declaring on their honour that they were PERCENT convinced that PERSON children were the victims of sexual and physical abuse . The professional competence of these CARDINAL experts can not be questioned - even by the GPE magistrats . They are Professor [ GPE ] ( Professor of Paediatrics at UIA [ ORG ] , Medical Director of the Algemeen Kinderziekenhuis Antwerpen and Director of ORG [ medical reception centre for abused children ] ) ; Professor [ MC ] ( Professor of Paediatrics at Louvain C[atholic ] U[niversity ] , Head of the PERSON [ ORG in PERSON and President of ORG ) ; Professor [ MA ] ( Professor of ORG at ORG ] , PERSON C[atholic ] U[niversity ] , who was appointed by ORG [ ORG ] to study the case ) ; and Dr [ ORG ] ( a child psychiatrist and psychoanalyst , appointed as an expert by the court ) .

With their letter they enclosed a note listing CARDINAL pieces of evidence , any CARDINAL of which on its own would , in any other case , have led to criminal proceedings or even an arrest . The aim of these scientists was clear . They were seeking from the courts a temporary ‘ protective measure’ whereby the children would have been admitted to CARDINAL of the CARDINAL [ medical reception centres in GPE for abused children ] pending a final court ruling . There was no response . The relevant magistrats did not react . ORG , however , did - it forbade Professors [ MA ] and [ MC ] to voice their opinions . Yet again the messenger is being shot without anyone listening to the message .

Politicians also reacted . The ORG Minister , PERSON , asked to see the file and is following the case closely but is powerless to intervene because of the constitutional separation of powers . And the MEPs PERSON , PERSON ... and PERSON ... have laid a draft resolution before ORG requesting a proper investigation and urgent measures to put an end to the children ’s dangerous predicament .

The public are finding the case harder and harder to ‘ ORG . The ORG Minister ’s office is inundated with CARDINAL of indignant letters . The DATE silent demonstrations on the steps of the GPE law courts continue and DATE , during DATE TIME , posters were stuck up all over the centre of town revealing PERSON surname and forename . The poster campaign , which aroused mixed feelings among journalists and lawyers , has given a new dimension to the controversy surrounding the PERSON case .

ORG On DATE the CARDINAL article appeared . It read as follows :

Our prediction of DATE that the agonisingly slow progress being made in the GPE and PERSON case was likely to leave the case stranded in the GPE courts has come true . In the teeth of all the evidence , ORG has held that the GPE judiciary can not be accused of any bias in this incest case and that the whole case can therefore continue to be dealt with in GPE .

In parallel with ORG decision there have been some remarkable events . The notary PERSON , so called in order to protect the identities of PERSON and DATE , now shows himself in public and is giving interviews , sometimes even accompanied by his children . The fact that his name ( and therefore the names of his little boys ) now appears in the press does not appear to bother him .

Another consequence is that the media are now breaking several months’ silence , and some editors have really gone off the rails .

It is very worrying , for example , that certain DATE and DATE newspapers are trying to play down the X case , depicting it as a run - of - the - mill divorce case in which both parties are hurling the most disgusting accusations at each other . In these really not very cheering proceedings the ‘ divorce’ aspect is only an insignificant detail , and moreover is quite another matter . Indeed , we have not published a single word on that subject , nor do we wish to do so , since it is a purely private matter .

The real issues in the case with which we are concerned are very serious accusations of incest and child abuse , supported by medical certificates and examinations , and the extremely questionable manner in which those accusations are being dealt with by the courts . This state of affairs is no longer part of CARDINAL people ’s private life but concerns us all . Moreover , the case of PERSON is simply the tip of the iceberg and is representative of other incest cases . It is for that reason , and that reason only , that we have written about it .

In the meantime , certain DATE and DATE newspapers are indulging in the most unsavoury sensationalism and , without really knowing the case , allowing the notary whole pages in which to proclaim his version of the facts . Of course , freedom of expression is sacred . But have we ever pushed PERSON and DATE ’s mother into the foreground ? Have we ever published her opinion of the case ? No . Humo ’s reports on PERSON and DATE have always been based on our own investigations alone and on innumerable authentic documents .

We have not written a single word that was not based on the reports of doctors , paediatricians , court experts and a bailiff . Since our first ‘ ORG authorised in ORG article came out as far back as DATE , the notary ’s family has tried to get ORG ’s management round the dinner table to ‘ discuss’ the case . The editorial staff have always taken a consistent line : no discussion - send us documents proving us wrong and we will publish them . We also made this offer on

[ the television programme ] ORG , but up to now PERSON has not got round to sending us his ‘ equally numerous pieces of expert evidence in rebuttal’ . For all his assertions in PERSON and ORG that these exist , it is strange that those ORG journalists have yet to receive this rebutting evidence . All the notary has tried to do so far is to muddy the waters and present the case as if it were a matter of his word against his wife ’s , an argument along the lines of ‘ Oh no , I didn’t’ and ‘ Oh yes , you did’ .

In the CARDINAL DATE issue of Knack the notary reveals yet another new discovery : the photographs were not taken by the bailiff but by his ex - wife , and were faked with ‘ red ointment’ . We repeat : if the bruises were caused by falling downstairs , why would they need to be faked with red ointment ? It is true that his wife took photographs , but in the presence of the bailiff . And they were expressly annexed to the bailiff ’s report .

But irrespective of that , the relevant point is that the bailiff did take photographs himself .

Nothing but red ointment ? The whole thing rigged so as to be more visible ?

Besides , those are not the only photos of injuries to have been taken . Dr [ MC ] also took numerous photographs of the injuries and of an ‘ abnormal irritation of the penis and the peri- anal region’ , and they were annexed to his reports . There is no evidence , the notary asserts . Will it really be necessary to publish a photo of his little boys’ sore anuses ?

The court , for which the bailiff ’s report was drawn up and the photographs taken , does not appear to have entertained any doubts as to their authenticity and added them to the case file DATE without comment . With good reason . [ GPE ] , the bailiff , took the photos with a polaroid camera in the presence of witnesses . That type of camera takes TIME to produce a photograph . It is not possible to tamper with them . Mr X knows very well why he has not instituted proceedings against the bailiff and why he has published his insinuations only in certain newspapers and magazines .

This is not the first time that the notary has tried bluff tactics . The following extract from Knack is telling : ‘ He freely admits that he has put pressure on several doctors , beaten up his brother - in - law and , after receiving a tip - off from inside the NORP editorial team , issued threats against PERSON magazine in order to try to get his name deleted from the articles , but he does not see any of this as intimidation and considers that in his unhappy situation , others would have behaved much worse.’

The allegation that PERSON tried to have his name deleted from ORG is one of his many lies . At that time he was asking for no more and no less than complete censorship : the article was not to be published ! For our part , it has never for a moment even crossed our minds to mention the name of the notary and his family . That name has therefore never appeared in a single draft , not even a preliminary one . For NORP it has never been a matter of attacking an individual ( and in this connection we dissociate ourselves completely from the billposters who are plastering the notary ’s name all over GPE ) but of the dubious way in which the case has been handled .

PERSON delights in telling everyone that he knows that the courts and the officially appointed experts are on his side . ‘ He told us that the report by the CARDINAL experts from the ORG ( appointed by ORG judge [ YL ] - PERSON . ) would be published on DATE , but that he could already reveal that the report proves his total innocence’ ( ORG , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

‘ DATE he hopes to distribute the reports by Dr [ MI ] , Dr [ GPE ] and Dr [ MJ ] , appointed as experts by ORG DATE ( ! ) . " They are unanimous and totally favourable to me " [ he says ] ... ’ ( Knack , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL )

PERSON was so positive that we fell into the trap ( see our previous article ) of believing that the reports cleared him of all suspicion . Since at that point the reports had not been filed , we asked : ‘ Does the notary have a hitherto unsuspected gift of clairvoyance or has he had an opportunity to consult the reports even before they are filed with the Youth Court?’

We do n’t know . But what we do know is that in his interviews the notary is cocking a snook at the truth . The CARDINAL reports are not entirely favourable to him . The conclusions of the report by the psychiatrist [ GPE ] , wholly confused though they indeed are , explicitly indicate that the evidence on the case file raises a strong presumption of sexual and physical abuse but that there is no absolute , irrefutable proof . Using the conditional mood , [ GPE ] adds that PERSON and DATE ’s stories could have been the product of ‘ PERSON , not to say spoon - feeding , by the mother . In other words , [ MONEY ] is saying that in fact he does n’t know . At all events , one can hardly say that this report is entirely favourable to Mr X. The notary has also lied to the press about other things . According to him , the children are afraid of GPE , the mother ’s environment - whereas according to [ GPE ] ’s report , one of the children is very positive towards his mother and very negative towards his father . The other child sometimes would prefer to stay in GPE and at other times to live in GPE . Moreover , [ GPE ] ’s opinion is that the children should be placed with a foster family , with access for both parents .

DATE Dr [ MJ ] ’s expert report also came in . A key witness in relation to the illtreatment of CARDINAL May , [ MJ ] concludes that it never took place . Yet another sample of the expert ’s wisdom : on the one hand , he states in his report that the children want to stay with their mother but , on the other , he recommends placing them with the father after the divorce , with limited access for the mother . As an immediate step , he recommends , just like [ MONEY ] , that the children should be placed in a neutral setting , with generous access for both parents . No doubt you have to be an expert in order to understand so many contradictions .

In contrast to the contradictory and inconsistent reports of these doctors , there are the irrefutable , unequivocal reports of Professor [ MA ] :

‘ Given that the children have again been subjected to sexual abuse by their father , I consider that any further contact between the father and the children would for the time being be extremely prejudicial to the children ’s subsequent development , and the situation is particularly dangerous for them in that their mental development and that of their personalities are seriously jeopardised . This being so , I consider it necessary to intervene as a matter of urgency under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( children at risk ) of ORG ( DATE )

The court expert [ ORG ] , appointed by the investigating judge [ YE ] , stated :

‘ All the examinations of PERSON and DATE lead to the same conclusion : the CARDINAL children describe sexual contact with Daddy . PERSON is in the midst of assimilating the psychological trauma into his subconscious . For LANGUAGE this process of assimilation is more difficult . The children ’s statements appear credible and I have set out a series of arguments on this PERSON ( DATE )

Dr [ MC ] , who has examined the children CARDINAL times ( and not CARDINAL as the notary , lying again , states in ORG ) and has found non - accidental injuries on CARDINAL occasions , states :

‘ In the interests of the CARDINAL children there should be an immediate court order withdrawing them totally and permanently from their father ’s orbit . Any further delay would be medically ORG ( DATE )

It remains a disgrace that the GPE courts refuse to take this evidence into account . "

The article was illustrated with CARDINAL other drawings said to be by the children ; it also contained what the applicants said was an extract from a report by the bailiff [ GPE ] describing bruises on both legs of the younger boy .

ORG Following the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON published an article on DATE that contained the following :

On DATE the GPE tribunal de première instance gave judgment in the case brought against ORG by the judges of ORG as a result of our articles about the notary Mr X. Humo lost all along the line . This judgment is not only desperately short on reasoning but also completely unsatisfactory . The ORG , [ ORG ] , and the other judges , [ ORG ] and [ YH ] , dealt with the case carelessly . They were not willing to listen to ORG ’s very strong arguments , while the debate about the relationship between the media and the judiciary , which was important for the press as a whole , was purely and simply brushed aside . We wonder whether their Lordships actually read ORG submissions .

The GPE tribunal de première instance chose the easy way out , holding it against us that the ‘ insinuations and offensive ORG against the judges ‘ have no foundation except gossip and malicious distortions’ . What the whole of PERSON knows , except apparently PERSON [ ORG ] , [ ORG ] and [ YH ] , is that our doubts as to the integrity of ORG magistrats were ( and still are ) based on a number of medical reports , which we have always cited verbatim , so there can be no question of malicious distortion . Are journalists acting unlawfully where they confine themselves to verbatim extracts from medical reports and to known and proved facts ?

We are also accused of sullying the GPE judges’ private lives . But at no time has NORP ever brought up anything to do with the judges’ private lives . We have kept , strictly and deliberately , to those matters that were directly linked to the case and were capable of verification in history books and press articles . How can matters which are so manifestly and indisputably in the public domain suddenly be considered aspects of private life ?

Further on in the reasons for their judgment , Judges [ ORG ] , [ ORG ] and [ YH ] say bluntly that we ‘ [ accept ] as true , without more , the statement made by PERSON former wife and her expert adviser ( Professor [ MA])’ . We care not a jot about PERSON former wife ’s statement . We have always concentrated solely on the medical findings and reports of innumerable doctors .

Yet the tribunal de première instance simply skirts round these facts .

Furthermore , CARDINAL of the essential aspects of PERSON case has cleverly been evaded : the conflict between the medical profession and the judiciary . Journalists have a duty to strive ‘ to respect the ORG , says the court - a dictum to which we gladly subscribe , but judges are under the same duty .

The judgment of the tribunal de première instance becomes positively PERSON when it attacks the medical reports by simply referring to the judgments of ORG judges , who deliberately failed to take those reports seriously - precisely the attitude that ORG has condemned . For which we had our reasons . But what do the judges of the GPE tribunal de première instance do ? They use their fellow judges’ judgments as evidence against ORG . In other words , the truth is to be found only in the judgments of the GPE judges . If that is the case , anyone who challenges a judgment , including in the press , runs the risk of being put in the wrong since a judge is always right . It is not the truth but ‘ the official truth and nothing but the official ORG which will be published in our newspapers in future . Is that what people want ?

Clearly , the GPE judges [ ORG ] , [ ORG ] and [ YH ] , did not manage to give judgment with the necessary detachment and independence on their fellow judges of ORG . They are thus adhering to the line of biased judgments which we have condemned in the case of ORG will accordingly be appealing against this judgment . "

ORG The first paragraph of the former DATE currently LAW provides :

" The press shall be free ; there shall never be any censorship ; no security can be demanded of writers , publishers or printers . "

ORG The relevant provisions of LAW are worded as follows :

" Any act committed by a person that causes damage to another shall render the person through whose fault the damage was caused liable to make reparation for it . "

" Everyone shall be liable for damage he has caused not only through his own act but also through his failure to act or his negligence . "

According to legal writers and the case - law , an offence against the criminal law constitutes per se a fault within the meaning of LAW ( see PERSON , PERSON het Belgische buitencontractuele aansprakelijkheidsrecht , p. CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ; judgments of ORG of DATE ( Pasicrisie DATE , I , p. CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL DATE ( Rechtskundig Weekblad CARDINAL - CARDINAL , col . CARDINAL ) ) . Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Civil Code accordingly provide a basis for civil proceedings for abuse of freedom of the press ( judgment of ORG DATE , Pasicrisie DATE , I , p. CARDINAL ) . A publication is regarded as being an abuse where it breaches a criminal provision ( without it being necessary , however , for all the ingredients of the offence to have been made out ) ; disseminates ill - considered accusations without sufficient evidence ; employs gratuitously offensive terms or exaggerated expressions ; or fails to respect private life or the individual ’s privacy .

ORG Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE , of LAW make defamation and insults punishable . By LAW , these offences , where committed against individuals , can be prosecuted only on a complaint by the injured party or , if that person has died , his spouse , descendants or statutory heirs up to and including the third degree . Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the same Code make it a punishable offence to insult members of the ordinary courts .