On January 21, 2016, the European Court of Human Rights (Court) ruled (judgment only available in French) that defamation judgments against the chairman of a French television channel and a reporter interfered with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the press release, the case arose from the controversy about a “documentary on the France 3 television channel concerning complaints lodged by families of the victims of the 11 September 2001 attacks.” Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud was interviewed for the program and “was the target of complaints from the victims’ relatives, who accused him of having assisted and financed the Taliban when he had been head of the intelligence service in Saudi Arabia.” He brought a defamation suit against the chairman of the France 3, Patrick de Carolis; the journalist in question; and the company France 3. The Paris Criminal Court decided that “some of the remarks criticised the Prince for giving material and financial support to al-Qaeda . . . thus suggesting that his personal liability was engaged in the 9/11 attacks. The implication was that only diplomatic considerations, not the weakness of the charges against him, could explain the impunity from which he had benefited.” The Appellate Court upheld the judgment, noting that “the journalist should have demonstrated prudence and objectivity, because she had referred to extremely serious accusations which had not yet been examined by a court of law.” The Court disagreed, noting “it was necessary to make a distinction between statements of fact and value judgments” and finding that the “factual basis” for the value judgments was sufficient. It further stressed that the journalist had used conditional language such as “presumed support” in order to “distance[] herself from the various testimony.” Additionally, she had consulted with several protagonists, including Prince Turki Al Faisal’s attorneys and “specialists and US officials, asking them to express their views and freely analyse the matter.” The Court concluded that “[t]he documentary as broadcast . . . was in fact illustrating the reality of such weighted evidence in the proceedings; the journalist had not therefore sought to deceive the public” and therefore did not contravene the standards of responsible journalism.