“The overhanging effect of the offence of criminal defamation is to stifle and silence the free flow of information in the public domain. This, in turn, may result in the citizenry remaining uninformed about matters of public significance and the unquestioned and unchecked continuation of unconscionable malpractices.” While announcing the repeal of the offences of seditious libel, defamatory libel, obscene libel and sedition, the UK secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, Ms. Claire Ward was quoted in the UK Press Gazette, 13th January, 2010, as having said that: “Sedition and seditious and defamatory libel are arcane offences – from a bygone era when freedom of expression wasn’t seen as the right it is today… The existence of these obsolete offences in this country had been used by other countries as justification for the retention of similar laws which have been actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict press freedom… Abolishing these offences will allow the UK to take a lead in challenging similar laws in other countries, where they are used to suppress free speech.” In the case of Kimel v. Argentina, judgement of the IACHR of May 2, 2008 the Inter American Court examined whether criminal proceedings of defamation against an Argentinian accused violated Article 13 of the Convention on freedom of thought and expression. It focused on the principles of proportionality to conclude that the violation of the applicant’s freedom of thought and expression had been overtly disproportionate. 41