REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA COMBINED SECOND PERIODIC REPORT UNDER THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLE`S RIGHTS and INITIAL REPORT UNDER THE PROTOCOL TO THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN AFRICA thereof are an independent co-regulatory mechanism set up by the print media to provide impartial, expeditious and cost-effective adjudication to settle disputes between newspapers and magazines, on the one hand, and members of the public, on the other, over the editorial content of publications.117 The mechanism is based on two pillars: a commitment to freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, and to excellence in journalistic practice and ethics. In terms of the South African Press Code – “the press exists to serve society. Its freedom provides for independent scrutiny of the forces that shape society, and is essential to realising the promise of democracy. It enables citizens to make informed judgments on the issues of the day, a role whose centrality is recognised in the South African Constitution…Our work is guided at all times by the public interest, understood to describe information of legitimate interest or importance to citizens. As journalists, we commit ourselves to the highest standards of excellence, to maintain credibility and keep the trust of our readers. This means always striving for truth, avoiding unnecessary harm, reflecting a multiplicity of voices in our coverage of events, showing a special concern for children and other vulnerable groups, and acting independently.”118 The Court held in the case of Tshabalala-Msimang v Makhanya119 that: “The freedom of the press is celebrated as one of the great pillars of liberty. It is entrenched in our Constitution but it is often misunderstood. Freedom of the press does not mean that the press is free to ruin a reputation or to break a confidence, or to pollute the cause of justice or to do anything that is unlawful. However freedom of the press does referred to as NM, SM and LH. The respondents were Charlene Smith (the writer of the biography), Miss Patricia de Lille (subject of the biography) and New Africa Books (the publishing company). NM, SM and LH alleged that their right to privacy as well dignity had been violated when a biography of Miss Patricia de Lille that was written and published disclosed their names as well as HIV statuses. The matter was adjudicated upon initially in the High Court where in it was held by Schwartzman J; that the public disclosure of the plaintiffs names and HIV statuses by the defendant was not unlawful and further that as a matter of policy, it would place an intolerable burden on journalists if they were required to always obtain the express, informed consent of the person concerned before disclosing his/her HIV status to the public at large. The plaintiffs attempted to appeal the matter in the Supreme Court of appeal but were unsuccessful in doing so. The matter was then appealed in the Constitutional court and this was successful. Madala J, as supported by Moseneke DCJ, Mokgoro J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J set aside the High Court decision. In the Constitutional court it was held that the respondent’s awareness that the applicants had not given their express consent but had still gone ahead and published their names was a violation of their rights to both privacy and dignity. The court held that the use of pseudonyms in this circumstance would not have made the story any less authentic, as well as that there was no proof that public interest warranted the publication of the applicant’s actual names. In finding the above the court held all three respondents liable for damages together with the publishers for their infringement of the applicants’ rights to privacy and dignity from the moment of the publication of the book. The amount of R35 000.00 was awarded in damages, to be paid by the three respondents to each of the applicants. 117 Press Council of South Africa website, http://www.presscouncil.org.za/ 118 Preamble to the Press Code 119 2008 (6) SA 102 (W) 56