Translation of the Conclusions of the Appellate Court's Decision

This is a translation of numbers 3 and 4 of the Appellate Court of Lisbon's decision in the case that has been filed by the McCann family against Gonçalo Amaral and others. 

This blog would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to every one of you who have supported Gonçalo Amaral through this case. It is not over; but this is, without doubt, a significant and relevant decision that boosts our confidence in the Portuguese Courts and in a system that may be excruciatingly slow but ultimately serves its purpose of performing Justice. 

Thank you. 



3. Under articles 635, number 4, and 639, number 1, of the Civil Process Code, the matter of the appeal is delimited by the appellant’s conclusions.

The matter subject to decision is thus essentially centred on the evaluation of the alleged wrongfulness and the responsibility that derives from it, imputed to the 1st defendant [Gonçalo Amaral], now the appellant, of the publication, by the 2nd and the 3rd defendants, equally appellants, of the works at stake.

As far as personality rights are concerned, article 26, number 1, of the Constitution states that everyone has a right to a good name and reputation and to the protection of the intimacy of private and family life.

The same fundamental law protects, with equal dignity, freedom of expression, by stating under number 1 of article 37 that everyone has a right to express and to publicise their thoughts in words, image or by any other means, as well as the right to inform, to inform oneself and to be informed, without impediment or discrimination.

And also, under number 2 of article 38, freedom of press, by consecrating freedom of expression and of creation by journalists and their collaborators.

Number 2 of article 18 establishes, in the case of conflict between fundamental rights, that any legal restrictions to those rights must be limited to whatever is necessary in order to safeguard other rights or interests that are constitutionally protected.

On the other hand, in ordinary law, article 70 of the Civil Code consecrates, as a principle, that the law protects individuals against any illicit offence or threat to offend their physical or moral integrity, while article 80 of the same diploma states that everyone must respect someone else’s intimacy of private life.

Whenever there is a collision of rights that are equal or of the same kind, the holders must, under number 1 of article 335, cede as necessary in order for all of them to produce their effect equally, without greater damage for any one of them – while (under number 2 of the same article), if the rights are not equal or are of different species, the one that is considered superior must prevail.

Therefore, and as the dominant jurisprudence understands the matter:

“One of the limits to the freedom of information, which therefore is not an absolute right, is the safeguard of the right to a good name. Journalists, the media, are bound by ethical and deontological duties, and duties of rigour and objectivity.

- The media have the right, the social function, of spreading news and giving critical or non-critical opinions, and it is important that they do so with respect for the truth and for someone else’s intangible rights, as are personality rights.

- The right to honour, in a broader sense, and the right to freedom of press and of opinion are traditional areas of conflict.

- Criticism has a boundary in the rights of its targets, but it remains legitimate if it is sharp, steely, as long as it is not injurious, because so often therein lies the style of the author.

- To criticise implies to reproach, fault-finding that is aired in the media only stops being legitimate as a manifestation of individual freedom when it expresses objective antijuricity, violating rights that are extremely personal and which effect, in a more or less lasting manner according to men’s memory, assets that need to be preserved as are the rights here at stake, to honour, to a good name and to a social standing” (decision by the Superior Court, dated 20/1/2010, www.dgsi.pt)

In the case at hand, apart from the reporting of the facts that are part of the inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, an analysis of the book and of the rest of the published material finds that the now 1st appellant [Gonçalo Amaral] therein sustains the thesis that an abduction did not take place, but rather the accidental death of the child, followed by a cover-up – through the concealment of her cadaver and the simulation of that crime – by plaintiffs Gerald and Kate McCann, now the subjects of the appeal.

It results from the aforementioned publication that the means of evidence and the indicia that it reports to are, essentially, those referred to and documented in the respective criminal enquiry.

Nevertheless, the exposed thesis, that the child died accidentally and that fact was concealed by the parents, who have broadcast, in order to deceive, the hypothesis of an abduction, is not new – the same is equally contained in the report which is mentioned under number 9 of the proven facts, determining the arguido constitution of said subjects of appeal [Kate and Gerry McCann], and was, after a copy of the inquiry was made public, published in the media (numbers 65 and 66 of proven facts).

As was stated in the decision, from this Section, concerning the appended injunction, the 1st appellant [Gonçalo Amaral], wanted, through this book – because the institution to which he was bound did not allow him to reply to attacks against his pride and honour, as a professional of the criminal investigation police – to expose his vision of the facts, and therefore the publication of said book has to be considered a legitimate exercise of the right to an opinion.

And because from the proved matter results that – apart from it being about facts that have been profusely published in the inquiry and even publicised through an initiative of the Republic’s Prosecutor General’s Office – it was the subjects of the appeal themselves [Kate and Gerry McCann] who, benefiting from an easy access, multiplied themselves in interviews and interventions in national and international media, one must conclude that it was them who, voluntarily, limited their rights to reservation and to the intimacy of private life.

By proceeding in this manner, they opened the way for anyone to equally express an opinion about the case, contradicting their thesis – without losing their right to exercise a legitimate, and constitutionally consecrated, right to an opinion and a freedom of expression of thought.

On the other hand, we cannot see how the right of the subjects of this appeal [Kate and Gerry McCann] to benefit, following their constitution as arguidos, from the guarantees of the penal process – including the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety – may be offended by the contents of a book which, in its essence, describes and interprets facts that are part of an inquiry whose contents have been published.

Nothing opposes that, although they have not been deemed sufficient to lead to a criminal charge, said facts are subject to diverse appreciation, namely in a work of literary nature.

Therefore, and because it is contained within consecrated rights, namely under numbers 37 and 38 of the Constitution, the publication at stake must be considered lawful.

Nonetheless, it is understood, in the decision under appeal, that because the 1st appellant, Gonçalo Amaral, was, until October 2, 2007, the coordinator of the criminal investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, he was, after his retirement on the 1st of July, 2008, subject to the duties of secrecy and reserve that are imposed to the employees that serve the Polícia Judiciária.

And, under such terms, although the introductory note in the book invokes personal reasons, in a situation of conflict with the rights to a good name and reputation of the subjects of the appeal, the appellant [Gonçalo Amaral] could not benefit, faced with the results of the investigation, of a broad and full freedom of expression – and thus his conduct would be unlawful, under article 484 of the Civil Code.

From what was above said about this matter, it is clearly understood that such argumentation cannot be sustained.

In effect, and independently of the reasons invoked by the appellant for the publication, it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.

In the absence of its primordial presupposition it must therefore be concluded against the previous decision, due to the lack of precedence of any of the requests that have been formulated by the current subjects of the appeal [Kate and Gerry McCann] – while the re-appreciation of the matter of fact that had been secondarily requested remains impaired.

4. From the above mentioned, it is agreed, in accordance with both appeals, to revoke the appealed decision and, considering the action against them to be unfounded, to acquit the appealing plaintiffs of the totality of the requests. The costs, in both instances [courts] are to be paid by the appealed subjects [Kate and Gerry McCann].

Nova Gente: Interview With Gonçalo Amaral

For the first time, Gonçalo Amaral speaks about the case that destroyed his career, his family and his health...

“My life is gone, I’m only alive due to my heart”

Condemned to pay 500 thousand euro to the parents of Maddie, the little English three-year-old girl that disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, on the 3rd of May of 2007, the former inspector will fight until the last legal instance, because he is “a free man and citizen” with “the right to express opinions”.

What was your reaction when you found out that the verdict from the court was unfavourable to you in the defamation suit that the McCanns filed against you?

I found out about the verdict through a friend who called me telling me about the news on the radio. I immediately called my lawyer, but he hadn’t been notified and the verdict was not in the process. It’s sad, but my lawyer could only access the sentence, that afternoon, because a British journalist sent it to him by e-mail. There is no doubt that the couple’s lawyer has good connections at the court. My reaction was one of calm and a wish to read the full contents of the verdict as soon as it was available on the Citius website, which only happened the next day, but with the date of the previous day. Mysteries which the webs of justice weave.

Were you surprised?

I wasn’t surprised, it was one of the open possibilities, but after the decision about the matter of fact, which was favourable to me, I trusted that the verdict would come in the same direction.

Do you think there are errors in the process? Do you feel wronged?

Those are not mistakes, but value judgements and understandings that are contrary to mine and to that of many other jurists. As for feeling wronged… What do you think? I can only ask if those who, for more than five nights, left their three children, aged three and two, to their own devices in a house within an unknown space, subjecting them to a thousand dangers, while they were partying with friends – not to mention the amounts of alcohol that was ingested on those occasions -, still has the right to be compensated. They practiced a crime of exposing and abandoning defenceless children and they weren’t even accused of that fact. Looking at our criminal legislation, at the English child protection legislation and at cases that recently happened with British subjects in the Algarve, after drunken nights, all that I can say is that the McCann couple is primarily responsible for their daughter’s disappearance. She only disappeared because they neglected her guard and, as parents, they were obliged to it. It is a fact that they lost their daughter, but that doesn’t give them the right to sue anyone or to be compensated. They can’t escape their guilt, which is enough to rob them of their sleep, to provoke a lack of appetite and even rage, but against themselves and not against someone who only wrote down what happened during the first five months of the investigation, according to what is in the case files. If compensation takes place, all that I can do is warn you: be careful, there’s people who may turn this into a new business!

Don’t you feel revolted by this verdict?

I don’t feel revolt, but I do not conform to it, I still trust our country’s justice system, for which I have worked for over 25 years, and I still am a free citizen with all my rights. On the other hand, even the question that Maddie’s siblings, then aged two, may someday read my book and become traumatized doesn’t concern me. Those two children were also abandoned for over five nights in a row and surely they will understand that what is written there is the result of a criminal investigation.

There is a question that those two children will certainly ask when they grow up but that question will be directed at the parents: why were they abandoned, left to their own devices? Those children are free to think and to conclude that whatever happened to their daughter could have happened to one of them. The parents can only fear that their two children who did not disappear on that tragic night revolt against them.

The court says that you caused Maddie’s parents and siblings moral damages…

In my understanding, there are no damages that, objectively and factually, may have resulted from my writing. Which is to say, there is no causal nexus between the book or the documentary and any damages. On the other hand, what is spoken about, like the feelings of rage, it can hardly be considered a damage.

The couple demanded one million two hundred thousand euro. The court has sentenced you to pay 500 thousand euro – including interest since 2010 – over damages that were caused by the publication of the book Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira. Aren’t both the request and the damages awarded by the court exaggerated?

There is no defamation crime, I haven’t been tried over any crime, if at all I am being tried over an offence of opinion, something unthinkable 40 years after the revolution of April of 1974, which ended the [fascist] Estado Novo, censorship and all the means that oppressed Portuguese citizens from thinking, speaking and writing freely. On the other hand, what is in the book is in the process, those are not lies, that can be verified by comparing the case files with the book and this court has not put that truth at stake. Nonetheless, a compensation of that amount only clarifies that the McCann couple is worth more than any Portuguese citizen, dead or alive, and that they are above any god or divinity, which, according to politicians, Portuguese intellectuals and others from the so-called democratic world can be criticized, ridiculed and satirized. Look at the discussions about the terrorist attacks against French newspaper Charlie Hebdo… With my book I did not defame, nor did I have the intention to defame anyone, but merely to report what happened during the first five months of the investigation, thus replying to the attacks against my good name and my professional dignity. There is no, no can there be any, reserve duty that superimposes our right to react and to defend ourselves from defamation and injustice, putting the truth back when our fundamental rights are violated, even when the authors of such attacks are subjects of a powerful country, to which Portugal has always bowed, with a short interregnum when the Portuguese Republic was founded, largely a result of the English ultimatum.

Apart from the payment, the court decreed the prohibition of the sale of new editions of the book Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court had decided to annul this prohibition back in 2010…

This court has not undone what had been decided by Lisbon’s Appellate Court within the injunction that was filed by the complainants. It should be clarified that the only decision that has, so far, become effective is that of Lisbon’s Appellate Court. That is the only one that is in force, the rest is still subject to appeal and it will take a few years to come into force, while I hope that our superior courts will see this differently from the lower court. This is just the judicial system working, therefore we need to remain calm.

In a more practical manner, I can say that the claimants, the McCanns, haven’t won anything yet, they only lost, namely with the decision from Lisbon’s Appellate Court, which is very clear in stating that the rights that have been violated were mine, that I, within the exercise of freedom of speech, could write the book and practiced no illicit action.

With this prohibition, are you forbidden from emitting an opinion about the case or about the McCann couple?

I am a free man, and like any other citizen in this country, I have the right to express my opinions. I was a Criminal Investigation coordinator, a policeman, and there is no reserve duty, a functional or merely instrumental thing, from the exercise of a profession, that superimposes a fundamental right and freedom of expression. To state that the duty of reserve limits freedom of expression for life, or even during the exercise of the profession of policeman, is to elevate that duty, which is merely administrative, above freedom of expression and fundamental rights, consecrated in the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and on the European Convention of Human Rights.

When you wrote the book, did it ever occur to you that you could be committing an offence?

I wrote the book because I, those who worked with me and the institution of the Judiciary Police were being put at stake. My good name and professional honour were severely attacked. In a first phase, I started by writing to the Judiciary Police’s national director, asking him to allow me to defend myself publicly or to come out to defend us, and I obtained no reply. Today, after all these years, I know that Dr. Alípio Ribeiro never received my letter, which was simply set aside by someone hierarchically below him.

Faced with the inertia and the silence from the institution that I belonged to, which, in my opinion, had the duty and the obligation to come out and defend the men and women who, with their work and great sacrifice, tried to protect it by performing an investigation at the level of any minimally developed country, I decided to ask for my retirement, and to report the criminal investigation that had been carried out and the conclusions that were reached up to the moment that I coordinated said investigation. At that time we already knew that the case was going to be shelved and the investigation abruptly ended. Everything was being prepared in that sense with the agreement, at least tacit, from the parents of the missing child, with the case files being delivered to journalists by the Public Ministry, which in itself question the duty of reserve to which, according to some experts, the policemen were subject to.

The book was a way to reply to the humiliation and the offences that I have been targeted with. Deep down, that was it: they say we are incompetent, they say we are a third world police force, drunkards, fat, lazy, etc., etc., and the Judiciary Police does not set out to defend us. Therefore I turned to writing, reporting the investigation that had been carried out, so people could draw their own conclusions. What happened next is known.

Do you feel abandoned by the intellectuals and the writers of this country?

Since I left the Judiciary Police, I am part of no institution, I have no political party, nor am I a member of any sports, recreational, cultural or social association, I do not belong to any congregation or obedience. I wrote three books (Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira; A Mordaça Inglesa; Vidas Sem Defesa), but I do not consider myself a writer. I’m an outsider.

Is freedom of expression not compromised by this type of verdict?

What is happening to me, since 2009, is an attack against freedom of expression and a trial over an offence of opinion. The intellectuals of this country, in general, have reacted with indifference. I am not part of their group, and to make things worse I’m an ex-policeman, something that is reproved by many. As far as I remember, only Dr. Francisco Teixeira da Mota, when the Appeals Court’s decision came out, wrote about the matter, saying that the decision had been correct, as the Portuguese State risked being condemned by the European Court for Human Rights… Someone asked me why the Portuguese Authors’ Society had not come out to defend freedom of expression and to denounce the attack that is underway. I replied I was not a member, which may explain the silence.

Are you still dedicated to writing?

I continue to write, but I have yet to decide when to publish. At the moment, I am writing my memoirs about the profession of criminal investigator.

Why are you economically suffocated? Your house in Tavira went to the bank, your consultancy firm had to close, one third of your pension is arrested…

To all of those questions I only reply that my life is gone. If I am alive, it’s due to the heart that I have.

Have you never considered suing the McCanns over the damages that they caused to your family?

Each thing in its own time, it won’t be only the McCanns, but their group of friends, and other people and entities that will be sued. There is an illicit action that was indeed performed, the neglect in guarding their children, which caused direct damages to many people, not only to myself, but for example to the Ocean Club workers, who were fired and saw their lives change, many of them unjustly passing from mere employees and heads of family to suspects in a criminal investigation, while they had nothing to do with the matter.

Is there a project that you would like to realise some day?

I would like to channel all the support that I have been receiving into the creation of an institution to support children and teenagers at risk, in a perspective of educating them for life, escaping the benefits perspective, promoting and building life projects with them, helping them to escape marginalization and the labeling process.

With so many problems, do you still have time to dream?

Dreaming is a part of free men, it costs no money, it can’t be bought, and we just live and feel it.

What remains unexplained in this case?

I don’t answer that question. Faced with what was said by the couple, after the verdict was known, that they felt stronger, I just feel like saying that only vampires become stronger with their victims’ blood. Like Zeca Afonso [Portuguese songwriter and singer] sang, “they eat everything”…

Text: Alexandra Ferreira (alexandra.lemos.ferreira@impala.pt);
Photos: Lusa, Paula Alveno and IMPALA

in: Nova Gente, 15.05.2015, paper edition

Gonçalo Amaral's Interview on RTP1

Gonçalo Amaral’s interview on Agora Nós, RTP1, 23.01.2015 

Anchor – Today, our guest is Gonçalo Amaral who was on the news again yesterday because of the lawsuit that the McCann couple filed against him. Good morning, Gonçalo.

Gonçalo Amaral – Good morning.

Anchor – I read in your book that you wrote this book to defend your honour. The first question that I have for you is: Were you in any way attacked by the McCanns before the publication of the book, or even during the investigation? Were you with them, did you question them?

Gonçalo Amaral – That is a very good question. There was indeed a series of attacks, not just directed at me but at the investigation. Those attacks came not only from the parents’ side, but also from their support staff and from journalists, English and even Portuguese. That honour was not only personal but also professional. The investigation was at stake, an investigation that was never defended here in Portugal, namely by someone at the top of the Polícia Judiciária – and it’s me who defends those initial months of the investigation, and that is what the book was published for. That is one of the issues that are raised by the Lisbon Appeals Court, at the time of the injunction, which supports me, and establishes that it was licit for me to write the book.

Anchor – If you don’t mind, let’s return to the start of this story, the McCann case was the most media exposed ever, as far as the alleged abduction of a child, Madeleine McCann, is concerned. This book, “Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira”, that was written by you, why was it so controversial? What does it contain?

Gonçalo Amaral – What it contains is the conclusions of the process, of a report that exists, in September of 2007, which says that at that moment of the investigation, suspicion falls upon the [McCann] couple in terms of an accidental death inside the apartment, neglect in watching over their children that had been abandoned, and the concealment of a corpse. That is in the process and with this decision, which is not a final decision, it is merely a reply to the facts that were at stake during the trial, it agrees that this was in the process.

Anchor – The process is not concluded yet, it is still ongoing –

Gonçalo Amaral – It is still in the lower court, now there will be legal arguments, then there will be a verdict –

Anchor – We are at the stage of replies to the proved facts, is that it?

Gonçalo Amaral – Proved and not proved.

Anchor – Did you question them? Did you meet them?

Gonçalo Amaral – I met them but the questioning was performed by others, by inspectors. A coordinator does not question directly, that was done by the inspectors. But I met them.

Anchor – You accompanied this process from the beginning…

Gonçalo Amaral – I accompanied the process, the investigation from the 3rd of May of 2007 until I left the investigation on the 2nd of October of 2007. I accompanied it, participating in the investigation.

Anchor – And what happened yesterday? What was the accusation –

Gonçalo Amaral – There was no accusation yesterday. Not yesterday, the day before yesterday. What was done is – there is a decision from the magistrate, the judge, saying what is proved and what is not proved. That decision says that it is not proved that I caused the couple any damages, social or psychological or moral damages. So what was being questioned, it’s not the book that causes such damages; they were already destroyed before the book. That is important. It’s important because in this kind of process, what is at stake, contrary to what the couple said, that what was at stake was the investigation, whether they are guilty or not, none of that was being discussed there. What was at stake there was whether or not that book and that documentary could be made, if they were licit or not, if they caused the couple any damages, and whether or not it was possible to establish a causal nexus between the book and the damages. And the indications that are given lead me, and my lawyer, and people who have already read the document, to believe that there may be – there may be – a favourable verdict.

Anchor – There is a contradiction between the news that came out –

Gonçalo Amaral – There is no contradiction. There is complete manipulation of the media.

Anchor – Can you clarify that?

Gonçalo Amaral - Lusa agency, since all of this began, has been taking sides – I wouldn’t say as much as they have taken the side of the couple, but they have taken the side of the couple’s lawyer. So there have been completely false news about me. I remember an article that was published in 2009 or 2010, which mentioned I was going to be tried over torture in a certain case, that I had been accused of torture. I was in Spain at that time and I called, it was already 7 or 8 p.m. and I said “Excuse me, but this is not true. I am being accused of omitting a denunciation and making a false statement, not of torture”. And the reply that I got from the Lusa journalist was that it’s them that make the news, that it was not for me to meddle with their work and that is how it’s been –

Anchor – Even though they were talking about your life.

Gonçalo Amaral – That’s another thing that happened throughout all of these years, not only the five years of this process, but since 2007 they have been rummaging… I don’t know what else there may be.

Anchor – The fact is that concerning the McCann couple, the McCann couple was never formally tried. They were never accused. So in your book we have a contradiction with the law.

Gonçalo Amaral – What is the contradiction? I don’t accuse them. I am nobody, I’m not a magistrate, I’m not the case magistrate to write up an accusation –

Anchor – But you had knowledge, you were part of the investigation –

Gonçalo Amaral – I was a technician, I’m a technician, and like anyone else, I have the right to an opinion. And as a technician, based not only on my professionalism, but also on my knowledge as a technician, I have the right to have a technical opinion. And that book contains a technical opinion, based on facts that are in the process and that the judge says are in the process. Essentially, as is said, they are in the process. Therefore, saying that they were not accused… The process was – when I left there was already a movement to have the case archived. From the moment that they are made arguidos, everything moves to shelve the case. Interest was lost; the interest was to archive the case. And they succeeded in shelving the case. It was in the couple’s interest to have the case archived, and two things happen: The couple does nothing, and they could have done something when there was a shelving, to continue into the instruction [phase] to keep the process going, for the truth to be found. You see, the conclusions that we reached were the conclusions of an investigation. And an investigation, like someone said, is always a zigzagging of the moment. And we might even have reached the end of the investigation –

Anchor – In this case, this investigation was very traumatising, very disorganised…

Gonçalo Amaral – Disorganised, in what way?

Anchor - Because nothing was concluded, so many years later the child’s whereabouts haven’t been found.

Gonçalo Amaral – Because of interferences that took place, without interferences we would have gone further. Have no doubts about that. That is why the process was archived. When the shelving took place, the couple and another person were arguidos. Any one of them could have requested the opening of the instruction and continued the process. None of them did it, the couple because they didn’t want to, they didn’t want to do it, and the other person because he received compensation from the British courts, so he didn’t do it, he was very satisfied, and now it seems that he is an arguido again. This is what happens –

Anchor - We have to ask one last question. The truth is that the McCann couple – and this is a question and not a statement – demanded compensation worth 1.2 million euro from you because of the publication of the book “A Verdade da Mentira”. This book was very controversial because it was also a success. Many people read it –

Anchor – Many copies were sold.

Anchor – Exactly. Many people read it and created their own opinion. Do you think that in some way that opinion drew people away from the possibility of believing in that child’s parents?

Gonçalo Amaral – No, it didn’t, quite the opposite. The book, which was successful in a way that nobody expected – the contract with the editor was even made based on sales targets, 10 thousand books sold would mean a certain percentage and so on – therefore a very normal contract, nobody was thinking about bestsellers or anything like that. What the book brought was more publicity for the case. And people were not drawn away. There are many people who still defend the couple’s thesis. There are other people – those diverging opinions already existed before the book. They already existed practically before the book. What motivates the couple to file the lawsuit of 1.2 million euro may be the money. They have a firm, a firm where they are members of the board, called Madeleine Fund, which is to look for their daughter, but they are members of the board, it’s a firm, it’s not a social association, or social solidarity, it’s a firm, it’s registered in England as a firm. And what they always wanted was to destabilise me. When they went to Oprah’s programme in the United States, they said it, they wrote on their website that they hope that now nobody believes in that person anymore, for this and that –

Anchor – But Gonçalo, they had to defend themselves with the weapons at hand, if they think they are innocent…

Gonçalo Amaral – Indeed they do. I will give you one example. We speak about the book and we speak about the documentary. We forget another detail. In 2009, in January of 2009, I lived in the Algarve and was indicated to run for mayor of Olhão on behalf of the Social Democratic Party [PSD]. And that alerted that family, that situation of destabilising me, and Mr Gerald McCann came to Lisbon, there’s news from that time, he met with a top political official from PSD who has a French surname, with Dr Rogério Alves and with Dr Isabel Duarte – this is what is said, it’s what was published – and what happened then was that PSD gave me up as a candidate. This puts rights at stake, the rights of a citizen, the rights of a Portuguese citizen, and someone comes from the outside to do it. It’s the right to be elected. And this is when they start thinking about the lawsuit. It’s not about what is in the book, what is in the documentary, because what the book and the documentary contain is what is in the process. They contain technical opinions. And it’s the fear of that issue – when they come over here and put the right to be elected at stake, with the acquiescence of people inside PSD, that this happened.

Anchor – Thank you very much, Gonçalo. Our time is short but this is a subject that we would like to discuss in more depth. We will continue to follow this because the process is still in its early stages.

Gonçalo Amaral – There is no motive to get too excited, but it’s a good indication of what may be the decision.

Anchor – Thank you for joining us today.


Watch the interview on RTP1's website - starts at 22:43.

Trial which opposes Madeleine McCann parents against Gonçalo Amaral to restart next Monday

Gonçalo Amaral and his lawyer, Santos Oliveira | photo by A.Guedes

Trial which opposes Madeleine McCann parents against Gonçalo Amaral to restart next Monday

The trial of the process in which the parents of Madeleine McCann ask for a compensation of 1,2 million euro, for alleged defamation [sic] by the former Judiciary Police inspector Gonçalo Amaral, is expected to restart next Monday morning.

The hearings that were taking place at the 1st Civil Court of Lisbon, at the Palácio da Justiça, had been on hold since October last year, so the parents of the English girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, in May 2007 could reach reach a court settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

Since no agreement was reached between Gerry and Kate McCann and Gonçalo Amaral, the judge who presides this court action - action which has caused Gonçalo Amaral's assets to be frozen as a precautionary measure, has decided to schedule the restart of the sessions for Monday.

The adjournment was granted four months after the trial began, on 12 September 2013, with the hearing of witnesses indicated by the McCanns, which included Gerry's sister.

The lawyer Isabel Duarte, the McCanns trustee, waived the testimony of the mother and father of Madeleine McCann.

In this action, the McCann couple, also allege that the rights, freedoms and guarantees of the family have been infringed, and demand 1,2 million euros in compensation from Gonçalo Amaral, who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine in May 3, 2007.

In the book "Maddie: The Truth of the Lie", written by Gonçalo Amaral, the former coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Judiciary Police of Portimão defends the alleged involvement of Kate and Gerry McCann in the child's disappearance and in the concealment of her body.

In a connected legal action, the McCanns submitted a temporary injunction banning the book and the video based on the same title, a documentary that was aired on TVI [TV channel].

On January 19, 2010, the 7th Civil Court of Lisbon decided to uphold the ban on the book and the video, that had been provisionally decreed in September 9, 2009.

Following legal recourse [by Gonçalo Amaral, TVI, Guerra e Paz and Valentim de Carvalho's defence lawyers], the Lisbon Appeals Court decided on 19th October 2010 to overturn the ruling [the ban] of the first instance court.

Kate and Gerry McCann appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice seeking for the overturn to be nullified, but the Supreme Court of Justice refused their request and confirmed the decision of the Lisbon Appeals Court, in 18 March 2011.

Madeleine McCann disappeared from an apartment in a tourist resort in Praia da Luz, while on holidays with her parents and twin siblings.

The girl had then three years old and the parents have always sustained that she was abducted.

Madeleine's parents were constituted as arguidos [formal suspects] in September 2007, nevertheless the process [investigation] was archived for lack of evidentiary proof in July 2008.

The process was re-opened on the 24th of October last year, after the Public Prosecutor's Office concluded that there were "new evidentiary elements to justify the continuation of the investigation."

in Agência Lusa [Lusa news agency], June 11, 2014

Note - Date confirmed, first trial session on Monday, 16th June at 09.30am at Palácio da Justiça in Lisbon.

---

Related
Ward of Court: Decision issued by Judge in Civil Trial
Court reports by Anna Guedes

PJGA Statement on the «Madeleine Foundation»

As of 12 June 2010 no donations made by Mr. Anthony Bennett or by the «Madeleine Foundation» had arrived to the ‘Citizens for the Defence of Rights and Freedoms - Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral’ PayPal account or Bank Solidarity account.

Whatever Mr. Bennett is claiming, and the recent «Madeleine Foundation» proposals (click on the left image to read) are not supported in any way by the ‘Citizens for the Defence of Rights and Freedoms - Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral’ nor by Mr. Gonçalo Amaral.

The unauthorized use of the PJGA's Legal Defence Fund details by the «Madeleine Foundation» and/or by Mr. Bennett as if that organization and/or individual partakes with the ‘Citizens for the Defence of Rights and Freedoms - Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral’ is undesirable and unwanted.


Extract from the PJGA Manifest
published on 11.06.2009

«The book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” was subject to an injunction that sought not only the suspension of sales of the book and the DVD that was based on it, but also of any and all divulgation of the thesis that is defended by Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, author of the book and former Judiciary Police coordinator, about the ‘Madeleine McCann’ case.

Through this action, a ban was imposed not merely on the written work, but on an entire line of thought: the expression of an opinion, based on the facts of a police investigation; a rational, responsible, mature decision.

Nonetheless, said injunction was merely the tip of an iceberg. In the main action that it refers to, Madeleine’s parents seek to extort the sum of 1.2 million Euros from Dr. Gonçalo Amaral – an astronomical amount that is out of any proportion, both legal, and ethical.

A second injunction succeeded in apprehending belongings and professional income from the defendant, stifling his capacity to respond in financial terms, given the fact that judicial and process costs are indexed to the value that is demanded through the main action. In this manner, stripped of his freedom of expression and economically asphyxiated, the siege on a Man who, at huge personal and family cost, seeks nothing more than the reopening of a judicial process, in order to conclude an investigation that so many consider has been cut off halfway through, closes in.»

The Legal Defence Fund/Solidarity Account was constituted to support Gonçalo Amaral in his struggle to regain his inalienable Right to Freedom of Expression as consecrated in the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution exclusively through the payment of judicial expenses and whenever it is proved necessary.

Cheques or donations made out personally to Gonçalo Amaral and/or to his family members are not accepted, and will be returned.

Financial resources that are deemed excessive in the future will be delivered to a social institution, dedicated to support children in need.

More information at Press Release – Defence Fund and Charter of Principles.

To Speak the Truth by Gonçalo Amaral

Two years ago a company of private detectives hired by the parents of the child who mysteriously disappeared in the Algarve, announced that the end of the drama was at hand. The child was about to be found and spend Christmas with her family. The desire of all those who wanted a happy ending was defrauded.

Today we discuss the opposition to an injunction that withdrew the fullness of freedom of expression fundamented on multiple stampedes on the truth. It is said in the injunction that a book written by me was to blame for the failure of the search for the missing child.

To Speak the truth would be to question the work of private detective firms, hired since the early days of the investigation, that could be considered disastrous.

To Speak the Truth mean to say that at the date of publication of the book, July 2008, the private detectives companies were already working on the case for many months.

To Speak the Truth would mean to say that at Christmas 2007 I was a policeman in service, calumniated and smeared by the support staff of the parents of missing child.

To Speak the Truth is to make clear that to restore the fullness of my freedom of expression I had to retire from the Judiciary Police, because only in that way I could defend myself.


in Correio da Manhã, Opinion column 'Matéria de Facto', 12 December 2009

Gonçalo Amaral: "A Mordaça Inglesa" - Lançamento / Book Launch

«Gonçalo Amaral não é um personagem.
É o atrevimento da Verdade. É o desafio da Verdade.»
Francisco Moita Flores in Prefácio

O novo livro de Gonçalo Amaral, "A Mordaça Inglesa - A história de um livro proibido", será apresentado ao público pelo Professor José Adelino Maltez na próxima sexta-feira, dia 11 de Dezembro de 2009, pelas 18h30 na Livraria Ler Devagar - Lx Factory, em Lisboa.

Rua Rodrigues Faria 103, 1300 - 501
(antiga gráfica Mirandela em Alcântara)

mapa

- " -

«Gonçalo Amaral is not a character.
He is the boldness of Truth. He is the challenge of Truth.»
Francisco Moita Flores in Preface

Gonçalo Amaral's new book, "The English Gag - The story of a forbidden book", will be publicly launched on Friday, the 11th of December, 2009, at the Ler Devagar - Lx Factory bookshop, in Lisbon, at 6.30 p.m.

With a preface by Francisco Moita Flores, the book will be presented by Professor José Adelino Maltez.

Maddie: Amaral support movement launches petition on the Internet

The movement “Citizens support Gonçalo Amaral”, the former Judiciária inspector who investigated the “Madeleine McCann” case, has informed today, Saturday, that it has placed two petitions online to deliver to the Portuguese Parliament, the European Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights.

In a press release, the “Citizens support Gonçalo Amaral” movement indicates that it has already placed two petitions on the internet and that the goal is to “support the constitutional right to Freedom of Expression, exercised in a responsible manner and without any other limits except those defined by law”.

“The first initiative by this movement is to place two petitions online – one for Portuguese citizens and foreigners that reside in Portugal, another one for foreign citizens, which we intend to submit, respectively, to the Portuguese Parliament, the European Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights”, reads the press release that was sent to the media today.

The movement “Citizens support Gonçalo Amaral” has appeared after the creation of a website that is titled “Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral”, whose purpose is to “return Freedom of Expression” to the former Polícia Judiciária inspector.

According to the movement, Gonçalo Amaral “has not done more than to publish, in a book, the report of a criminal investigation: a report that is based on facts and on the conclusions of an entire, vast team of investigators, as clearly results from the process itself, which has been made public already”.

Gonçalo Amaral’s book, “Maddie, the truth about the lie”, was published in 2008, but in September this year the Civil Court of Lisbon prohibited the sale of the book, whose subject is the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Madeleine McCann disappeared on the 3rd of May 2007, from the room where she was sleeping with her two younger twin siblings, in an apartment at the “Ocean Club” tourist resort in Praia da Luz.

On the 7th of September 2007, the child’s mother, Kate, and the father, Gerry McCann, were made arguidos.

Nonetheless, the authorities have never been able to establish was really happened to Madeleine McCann, and on the 21st of July 2008, the Attorney General’s Office announced the closing of the investigation and the archiving of suspicions against Gerry and Kate McCann.

The McCann family demands the payment of a compensation of at least 1.2 million euros from the former PJ inspector, over his statements about Madeleine’s disappearance, that are considered to be defamatory.

The movement for Gonçalo Amaral warns that “other actions will follow, always with the purpose of supporting the “constitutional right to Freedom of Expression”.


in: Jornal de Notícias, 14.11.2009

Gonçalo Amaral Receives Support on the Internet

The former PJ Inspector is receiving support of citizens who want to take to the Portuguese Parliament and to the European Parliament a text in his defense.

Taking to the Portuguese Parliament and to the European Parliament a text in defense of Gonçalo Amaral is the objective of the petition «Projecto Justiça para Gonçalo Amaral», organized by a group of citizens who support the former PJ coordinator.

The petition already has more than fifty signatories, mostly Portuguese, and will be delivered to the Portuguese Parliament, to the European Parliament and to the European Court of Human Rights.


The petition was also released in English and already has 206 signatures.


in Lux Magazine