EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance

EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance

• A 2008 book suggested the McCanns were responsible for the disappearance
  
  
• The Portuguese officer was taken off the investigation after a 27-year career
  
  
• The McCanns fought back against the initial ruling on an appeal in Portugal
  
  

By NICK PISA FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 12:05, 15 September 2022 | UPDATED: 12:25, 15 September 2022

Madeleine McCann’s parents will find out next week if they have won their rollercoaster legal battle against the former policeman who suggested they were responsible for her disappearance.


Kate and Gerry took action against Goncalo Amaral, 62, for slurs in his book The Truth of the Lie and they have been locked in a bitter courtroom fight ever since it was published in 2008 — a year after Madeleine went missing.
They are appealing to the European Court of Human Rights in the French city of Strasbourg after Portugal’s highest court threw out their long-running libel claim against Amaral, who suggested they were involved in her disappearance.
Initially they had won the first round and an injunction was granted to prevent further sales of the book, which was written by Amaral who was taken off the investigation after a 27-year police career.





Madeleine McCann’s parents, Gerry McCann (R) and Kate McCann (L), are soon to find out the results of their rollercoaster legal battle against the former policeman who suggested they were responsible for their daughter's disappearance





Former Policia Judiciaria detective Goncalo Amaral, pictured holding a copy of his book entitled Maddie: The Truth about the Lie, has been embroiled in a 14-year libel battle against the parents. Kate and Gerry took action against Amaral for his 2008 book
He later appealed the decision and after years of litigation — which also at one point involved him paying the McCanns £429,000 in compensation — won the case in 2017.
This was after Portugal’s highest court ruled he was entitled to ‘freedom of expression’ but in a last ditch battle the McCanns immediately went to the European Court of Human Rights and have been waiting ever since for a decision.



Technically, the case being considered by the court in Strasbourg is against Portugal and Portuguese justice and not Amaral himself but if they lose they could be forced to pay considerable costs.
It may even involve them dipping into their Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned account which according to the latest accounts has a balance of £931,500.
Paperwork lodged at the court shows Kate and Gerry are claiming the allegations in his book and a subsequent documentary ‘infringed their right to respect for their private life and their right to presumption of innocence’.
They complained that the Portuguese ruling failed to take into account criteria set out in case law and judges at the Strasbourg court sent out detailed questionnaires to the Portuguese state asking the McCann for further observations and if an out of court settlement was possible.
A source in Strasbourg said the Portuguese had refused the offer and other documents in the case reveal Amaral made more than £350,000 from the book and DVD, plus another £20,000 from various TV and newspaper interviews.
In their argument the couple detail the pain they have been through since then three year old Madeleine disappeared during a family holiday in Praia da Luz on Portugal’s Algarve coast in May 2007.
They go onto describe the anguish they endured after being made suspects or ‘arguidos’ by the Portuguese police a few months after she disappeared.



The former police officer's book hammers out a theory that the McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance
Lawyers say Amaral’s book ‘incriminated innocent citizens, accused of terrible crimes they never committed’. It goes on to say they are trying to ‘protect not only their reputation but that of the child as well’.
They also say Amaral’s book was ‘extravagant’ and ‘damaged the good reputation’ of the McCann family. Amaral argued in his defence that the book’s allegations came from his and his team’s investigation.
Last year Amaral wrote a follow up book called Maddie: Enough Lies in which he said prime suspect Christian Brueckner, who was named in 2020 by German police as the man responsible for her kidnap and ‘murder’ was merely a scapegoat.
He says German investigators have turned convicted rapist and paedophile Brueckner, into a ‘man made Frankenstein’ and he accuses them of a botch job as part of their ‘discredited desire’ to link Brueckner, 45, to the crime.
In the 294 page book he also again repeated his theory the McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, were responsible but they have always steadfastly denied it.
In an announcement Thursday, the ECHR said the judgement was among 24 that would be published on Tuesday.





The McCann's fought back against the initial ruling on an appeal, complaining that the Portuguese ruling failed to take into account criteria set out in case law
It added: 'The case concerns statements made by Mr Goncalo Amaral — a former detective inspector — in a book, a documentary, adapted from that book and a newspaper interview about the applicants’ alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, who went missing on May 3 2007 in southern Portugal.
‘Relying on articles 6 and 2 (right to a fair hearing, 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants allege that those statements damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent, and complain that they were unable to redress before the domestic courts.
‘They also argue that the reasoning in decisions issued by the Supreme Court on 31 January and 21 March 2017, at the close of action for damages brought by them, breached their right to be presumed innocent.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11215227/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-finally-Tuesday-won-14-YEAR-libel-battle.html

They still don't understand the role of the European Court of Human Rights do they .

I'm sure they do.

But it fits the narrative to get the press to LIE and pretend it is a case against Gonçalo Amaral
instead of an attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.

I'm astonished the case has got that far in the inner sanctums of the ECHR - how did it even get past security at the door?

Aside from anything else, the claims made by the McCanns for presentation before the ECHR, replicate the damage they have done to their victim - Gonçalo Amaral.

They and their support team ruined the life, reputation, career, health and social standing of Snr Amaral.

There IS however one decent Journalist who does understand and is capable of explaining to all those who either don't, or who, more probably, PRETEND not to.   FOR MONEY.

Natasha Donn

https://www.portugalresident.com/mccanns-versus-portugal-european-court-publishes-decision-on-tuesday/

McCanns versus Portugal: European Court publishes decision on Tuesday
By
 Natasha Donn
 -
16th September 2022


Moment should draw line on 14 years of litigation

The parents of missing Madeleine McCann are due to hear on Tuesday whether or not the European Court of Human Rights believes they were wronged by the Portuguese court system.

Media sources in the UK have said the decision relates to the couple’s legal battle with former PJ police coordinator Gonçalo Amaral – the author of the book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira, in which he explained his theory that they could have been involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. This is not exactly true. The decision relates to the couple’s ‘complaint against Portuguese Justice’ for having absolved Mr Amaral, after years of litigation.

Giving notice of}] ‘forthcoming judgements and decisions’, the court writes: “The case concerns statements made by Mr Goncalo Amaral — a former detective inspector — in a book, a documentary, adapted from that book and a newspaper interview about the applicants’ alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, who went missing on May 3 2007 in southern Portugal.

‘Relying on articles 6 and 2 (right to a fair hearing, 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants allege that those statements damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent, and complain that they were unable to redress before the domestic courts.

‘They also argue that the reasoning in decisions issued by the Supreme Court on 31 January and 21 March 2017, at the close of action for damages brought by them, breached their right to be presumed innocent.’Whatever the ECHR decides, it will not affect Gonçalo Amaral. Portugal’s Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that the book he wrote fell within his own rights to freedom of expression. But the decision, if it goes against the McCanns, could severely affect them, as they will then be liable to pay court costs which have essentially been put on hold since the complaint to the Strasbourg court was made.
The Daily Mail admits that if the couple ‘loses’ (meaning if the court does not uphold their complaint, submitted as ‘McCann and Healy v. Portugal‘) “it may even involve them dipping into their Madeleine Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned account, which according to the latest accounts has a balance of  £931,500”.
If the ECHR however finds in favour of the couple, it will set out what is termed ‘just satisfaction’ – a monetary amount in which the McCanns are to be compensated by the Portuguese State (not by Gonçalo Amaral).
natasha.donn@portugalresident.com
SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS

They had been forewarned that they should seek an amicable out of Court settlement.

They chose not to.

And still people don't understand.

WOW.    The DAILY STAR GETS IT MORE NEARLY RIGHT ! ! !




https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/maddie-mccanns-parents-set-find-28012539


Blah, blah, blahdy blah,
but then . . .

"Technically, the case is against Portugal’s justice system, not Amaral."


Which is better than nothing I suppose

They, the parents McCann, used the media to their advantage.

They put themselves centre stage from the very beginning, the night of Thursday 3rd/Friday 4th May 2007, that fact continues to this very day to an extent.

Snr Gonçalo Amaral didn't do that, nor did the Portuguese nation or any of it's adherents.

BREAKING ON SKY AND ELSEWHERE


MCCANNS HAVE LOST

It's all there in French, but the final paragraph from google translate:


112. Having regard to these findings, the Court concludes that the applicants' complaint based on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of the reasoning of the judgments of the Supreme Court is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and, as such, inadmissible. It must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
 
Declares the complaint concerning Article 8 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
Holds that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Done in French, then communicated in writing on September 20, 2022, in application of article 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the regulations.
 
 
 Ilse Freiwirth Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
 Deputy Registrar President

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-219530"]}


According to the Guardian, the Mc's have got 3 months to appeal this decision.

Surely that can't be right, can it?

Madeleine McCaMadeleine McCann’s parents lose challenge over Portuguese libel case (msn.com)nn’s parents lose challenge over Portuguese libel case





[size=64]The parents of Madeleine McCann have lost their European court of human rights challenge to the Portuguese supreme court’s decision to throw out their libel case against a former detective who implicated them in their daughter’s disappearance. Kate and Gerry McCann sued Gonçalo Amaral, who led the botched police search for Madeleine in 2007, over statements he made in a book, documentary and newspaper interview alleging that they were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.
In 2015, a Lisbon court ordered Amaral, a former detective inspector, to pay €500,000 (£440,000) to Madeleine’s parents. But an appeal court overturned the decision the next year and, in 2017, the supreme court also found against the McCanns.
The couple went to the European court of human rights to seek redress, relying on the European convention on human rights – including articles conferring the right to a fair hearing and the right to respect for private and family life – to argue that Amaral’s statements damaged their reputation, their good name and their right to be presumed innocent.

Madeleine was three when she went missing from her family’s holiday flat in Praia da Luz on 3 May 2007, while her parents dined at a nearby tapas restaurant, triggering a huge missing person investigation.
Amaral released his book, The Truth of the Lie, three days after the Portuguese attorney general decided to end the search for the toddler in 2008. He later took part in a documentary for Portuguese television.
In April this year, officials in Faro named a 44-year-old convicted German rapist, Christian Brückner, as an arguido, or formal suspect. It was the first time Portuguese authorities had officially identified a suspect in the case since Madeleine’s parents were declared as such in 2007. They were formally cleared of suspicion in 2008.
German police said in June 2020 that Madeleine was assumed dead and that Brückner was probably responsible for her disappearance. However, British officers continue to treat it as a missing person case.[/size]

In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of McCann and Healy v. Portugal (application no. 57195/17) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned statements made by a former detective inspector – in a book, a documentary and a newspaper interview – about the applicants’ alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine McCann, who went missing on 3 May 2007 in southern Portugal. Before the Court, the applicants alleged that there had been a violation of their right to reputation and to their right to be presumed innocent.
The Court considered that, even assuming that the applicants’ reputation had been damaged, this was not on account of the argument put forward by the book’s author but rather as a result of the suspicions expressed against them, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the criminal investigation (the prosecutor’s office decided to take no further action in July 2008) and had led to intense media attention and much controversy. The information had thus been brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the book in question was published. It followed that the national authorities had not failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life.
The Court also considered that in the Supreme Court’s judgments of January and March 2017 – concerning the civil claims lodged by the applicants – it had not made comments implying any guilt on the part of the applicants or even suggesting suspicions against them with regard to the circumstances in which their daughter had disappeared. The applicants’ complaint concerning their right to be presumed innocent was thus manifestly ill-founded.

Source:
[url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7438419-10185805&filename=Judgment McCann and Healy v. Portugal - Book by a former police inspector about Madeleine McCann%27s parents.pdf]https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7438419-10185805&filename=Judgment%20McCann%20and%20Healy%20v.%20Portugal%20-%20Book%20by%20a%20former%20police%20inspector%20about%20Madeleine%20McCann%27s%20parents.pdf[/url]

Press release.

CASE OF MCCANN AND HEALY v. PORTUGAL
(Application No. 57195/17 )
 
Art 8 • Positive obligations • Private life • Dismissal of the civil action of the applicants accused of the crime against their missing daughter by a former police officer in charge of the high-profile investigation dismissed for lack of evidence • Matter of public interest • Applicants, having exposed themselves to the media, entered the public sphere • Value judgments based on a sufficient factual basis • Widely debated media affair before public access to the investigation and the publication of the book • Lack of serious repercussions of the assertions of the police on the applicants • Detailed balancing of the interests at stake in compliance with the Court's case-law 
 
STRASBOURG
September 20, 2022
 
This judgment will become final under the conditions defined in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may undergo shape alterations.

In McCann and Healy v. Portugal,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of : 
 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President ,
 Tim Eicke,
 Yonko Grozev,
 Armen Harutyunyan,
 Father Pastor Vilanova,
 Jolien Schukking,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Judges, 
and de Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar ,
Seen : 
the application (no . 57195/17 ) brought against the Portuguese Republic and brought before the Court by two British nationals, Mr Gerald Patrick McCann and Ms Kate Marie Healy (“ the applicants ”) under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“ the Convention ”) on July 28, 2017,      
the decision to bring the application to the attention of the Portuguese government (“ the Government ”),  
the observations of the parties,
noting that, having been informed of its right to take part in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention), the British government did not wish to avail itself of it,   
After deliberating in chambers on August 30, 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, adopted on this date : 
INTRODUCTION
1. The application concerns statements made by Mr. Gonçalo Amaral (hereinafter " GA "), a former judicial police inspector, in a book, in the documentary adapted from it and in an interview with a newspaper in subject of the applicants' alleged involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, which occurred on 3 May 2007 in the south of Portugal. Relying on Articles 6 §§       1 and 2, 8 and 10 § 2 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that these statements damaged their reputation, their credit and their right to the presumption of innocence. They further argue that the reasoning contained in the Supreme Court decisions rendered on January 31 and March 21, 2017 in their civil liability action also violated their right to the presumption of innocence.
ACTUALLY
2. The applicants were born in 1968 and live in Leicestershire, United Kingdom. They were represented by M e R. Correia Afonso, lawyer in Lisbon.  
3. The Portuguese Government (“ the Government ”) were represented by their Agent, Ms MF da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Prosecutor General.    
* THE GENESIS OF THE CASE
    * The disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the investigation opened into this disappearance
4. At the material time, the applicants were on holiday with their three children at the Ocean Club, a hotel complex located by the sea in the village of Praia da Luz, in southern Portugal.  
5. On the night of May 3, 2007, Madeleine, their three-year-old daughter, disappeared when she was supposed to be sleeping in the apartment occupied by the family.  
6. Around 10 p.m. the applicants called the police, stating that their daughter had been abducted. A search was immediately launched around the perimeter of the hotel.  
7. The following day, the public prosecutor's office near the court of Portimão opened an investigation by directing the research on the trail of the abduction.  
8 . The investigation was entrusted to Inspector Gonçalo Amaral (“ GA ”), of the Judicial Police (“ PJ ”) of Portimão. From the outset, it had a major media impact, both nationally and internationally.      
9. A national of British origin was charged. The suspicions against him were not confirmed, and his indictment was therefore lifted.  
10 . Biological and blood traces were detected by British police dogs inside the holiday apartment and in the boot of the vehicle which the applicants had rented a few days after their daughter's disappearance (see paragraph 40 below). Consequently, on 7 September 2007 the applicants were charged ( constituídos arguidos ). They were suspected of hiding their daughter's body after she possibly died in a domestic accident in the flat and of faking a kidnapping. The indictment of the applicants received unprecedented national and international media coverage.   
11. On 9 September 2007 the family returned to the United Kingdom.  
12. On September 10, 2007, TA, chief inspector of the PJ, drew up a report. In it, he took stock of the investigation, concluding in the relevant parts of the case as follows :   
“ (...) according to what has been established, Madeleine would have died on the night of May 3, 2007 inside the apartment (...) occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (.. .). 
(...)
B) There was a simulation of abduction ; 
C) To make impossible the hypothesis of a death of the child which would have occurred before 22:00, one invented the existence of a plan supposed to organize the surveillance of the children of the McCann couple during their sleep ; 
D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the body ( ocultação de cadáver ) of their daughter Madeleine McCann ; 
E) For the moment, there does not yet seem to be any clues that would show that the death of the child did not occur as a result of a tragic accident ; 
F) from what could be established, everything indicates that, in the interest of their defence, the McCann couple do not wish to hand over the body immediately and voluntarily ; it is very likely that it was moved from the original place where it was deposited (...) ”.  
13 . In his report, Inspector TA asked the public prosecutor's office to have the applicants heard again and possibly subject to a measure of constraint.  
14 . On October 2, 2007, GA was removed from the investigation after making controversial statements to the press.  
15 . He retired on July 1 , 2008.  
* The classification without follow-up of the investigation
16 . On 21 July 2008 the public prosecutor's office issued a decision to discontinue the investigation ( arquivamento do inquérito ) pursuant to Article 277 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“ CPP ”) (see paragraph 61 below). It concluded, as follows, in its relevant parts in this case :     
" (...) 
Since some of the points put forward by the accused and by the witnesses seemed to present some contradictions (...) it was decided to proceed to a reconstruction of the facts (...) in order to duly clarify the following details on the scene of the facts , which are extremely important : 
(...)
4. What happened between 6:45 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (...) and the time at which the abduction was reported, that is around 10:00 p.m .; 
5. (...) form the firmest possible conviction about what [JT] and the other intervenors witnessed and, eventually, dispel once and for all any lingering doubt about the innocence of the parents of the disappeared.
To this end, (...) the appearance of witnesses was requested (...).
However, although the national authorities have taken all steps to facilitate their movement to Portugal, for reasons that we do not know, after numerous explanations were given to them concerning the necessity and the advisability of their movement, they chose not to appear. Also, the [reconstruction of the facts] could not take place.
For us, this has mainly prejudiced the McCann defendants. They have indeed lost the possibility of proving all that they have advanced since they were indicted, that is to say their innocence in the face of the fateful event ; the investigation was also hampered because these facts could not be clarified (...). 
While the disappearance of M. from apartment no . 5 of the Ocean Club is indisputable, this is not the case either with the modus operandi or the circumstances in which it occurred, despite all the measures taken to elucidate them (...). 
... the homicide remains a hypothesis since it has not been established by the evidence.
The non-involvement of the defendants, M.'s parents, in any criminal offense seems to stem from objective circumstances, in particular the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of his disappearance, as well as their behavior, which been normal until and after this disappearance, as follows from the statements made by the witnesses heard, from the analysis of the telephone calls and also from the conclusions of the scientific expert reports, in particular from the Forensic Science Service and the Institute of forensic medecine.
(...)
Even assuming that Gerald and Kate McCann could have been responsible for the death of the child, it remains to be explained how, by where, when and with what means, with whose help and in what place they got rid of the body in the limited amount of time they would have had to do so. To this must be added that their daily routine until May 3 was limited to the perimeter of the Ocean Club and the adjacent beach, that they did not know the surroundings and that they had no friends or acquaintances in Portugal, in addition to the English friends with whom they had traveled (...).
Examinations and analyzes were carried out by two of the most prestigious institutions, which have been accredited for this purpose, the Institute of Forensic Medicine and the British Forensic Science Service laboratory. The final results [do not confirm] ( valorizam positivamente ) the elements collected and do not corroborate the sightings made by the dogs [of the British police].
(...)
No evidence has been obtained which would enable an ordinary man, in the light of criteria of common sense, normality and the general rules of experience, to formulate a lucid, clear, serious and honest conclusion on the circumstances in which the child was taken from the apartment, to state a coherent prognosis and, this is the most dramatic, to determine whether she is alive or dead, the latter hypothesis seeming the most probable. (...) Thus, all things considered and examined, as we have just explained, we order the dismissal of the case concerning [the applicants] since there is no element indicating that they would have committed some offence. » 
17 . On the same day, the public prosecutor's office issued an information note to the media explaining that the investigation had been closed without further action but that it could be reopened at any time, ex officio or at the request of any interested party if new pieces of evidence were uncovered and made it possible to launch serious and relevant investigative measures. A digital copy of the investigation file, from which the confidential elements had been removed, was created in order to be made available to any interested person. It appears from the file that the content of this file was disclosed in the press and that it gave rise to numerous debates.  
18. The circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance have still not been elucidated to this day, as she remains untraceable.  
* THE PUBLICATION AND LAUNCH OF THE BOOK “ MADDIE : A VERDADE DA MENTIRA ” (“ MADDIE, THE TRUTH OF THE LIE ”) AND THE ADAPTATION OF THE BOOK INTO A DOCUMENTARY      
    * The publication of the book
19 . On July 24, 2008, GA published a book about the case entitled “ Maddie : a verdade da mentira ” (“ Maddie, the truth of the lie ”). This book was published by Guerra e Paz (" GP "). On the cover was affixed the mention “ confidential ” and on the back cover appeared the mentions “ restricted reading ” and “ contains unique revelations ”.               
20 . In this work, GA recounted the investigation he had led into the disappearance of Madeleine until he was dismissed, punctuating the story with personal reflections on his work as an investigator, his colleagues, the Algarve and his family.  
21 . The foreword to the book reads as follows:  [1] : 
" Of course, this book responds to the need I felt to defend myself, having been discredited without the institution for which I worked for more than twenty-six years having allowed me to explain myself, either publicly or even within it. I had however formulated this request several times, but it was never heard. I therefore scrupulously respected the rules of the judicial police and refrained from making any comments. But that was not self- evident: I lived this silence to which I was forced as an attack on my dignity. Then I was removed from the investigation. That's when I realized it was time to talk. To do this, I asked for my early retirement, in order to be able to express myself freely.  
However, the purpose of this book is more important : to contribute to the discovery of the truth so that justice is finally done in the investigation known as the “ Maddie affair ”. Truth and justice are two values deeply anchored in me which reflect my deep convictions : they have never ceased to guide my work within the institution to which I am proud to have belonged. Even in retirement, they will continue to inspire me and be present in my life.    
In no way does this text seek to call into question the work of my colleagues in the judicial police or to compromise the ongoing investigation. I am convinced that the revelation of all the facts could, in the present case, harm the continuation of the investigations. However, the reader will have access to new information, to new interpretations of the facts – always in compliance with the law – and, of course, to relevant questions.
The sole purpose of a criminal investigation is the search for the truth. “ Political correctness ” has no place there. »   
22 . The conclusion of the book reads as follows:  [2] : 
“ It is important to deliver now, on the basis of our deductions, a summary of this case. Reject what is false, remove what cannot be demonstrated with sufficient certainty and validate what has been proven. 
1. The abduction thesis is defended from the beginning by Maddie's parents.
2. In their group, only the McCanns claim to have seen the bedroom window open. The others cannot confirm this since they arrived in the apartment after the alert was given.
3. The only person to have seen this window open with the blinds up is Amy, one of the daycare workers at the Ocean Club. She made this observation around 10:20 p.m. / 10:30 p.m., that is to say well after the alert – which does not exclude that the window could have been closed at the time of the criminal action.
4. Testimonies and depositions reveal a large number of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions. The testimony of [JT] in favor of the thesis of the abduction is probably false : moreover, it gradually lost all its credibility because of the successive modifications made by [JT], modifications which ended up invalidating it. . 
5. The body, whose existence was confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs but also by the preliminary results of the laboratory analyses, could not be found.
The conclusions that my team and I have reached are as follows : 
1. Underage Madeleine McCann died inside Apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007 ; 
2. There was a mock abduction ; 
3. Kate Healy and Gerald MacCann are likely involved in hiding their daughter's body ; 
4. Death may have occurred following a tragic accident ; 
5. There is evidence of parental negligence regarding child care and safety.
(...) We gave the best of ourselves to solve this case. Our conclusions are based on proven facts and indices interpreted with regard to the law. Our job has been to work for justice based on material truth, the only one that must prevail in a universe where lies are erected into truth. » 
* The interview given to the daily newspaper Correio da Manhã
23 . On July 24, 2008, when the book was launched, it was sold with the edition of the same day of the tabloid daily Correio da Manhã, which also published an interview given to it by the author and in which the latter reiterated the thesis defended in his book. The relevant passages from this interview are as follows :   
" (...)

da Manhã : which thesis do you favor as an investigator in the case ?  
GA : The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which faithfully recounts the investigation up to September : it reflects the opinion of the Portuguese and British police as well as that of the prosecution. For us, until that moment, everything was proven : the concealment of the body, the simulation of an abduction and the endangerment of the life of others.   
Correio da Manhã : what led you to suspect the McCanns of all these crimes ?  
GA : It all starts with an abduction theory constructed by the parents. And the abduction is based on two elements : one is the testimony given by [JT], who says he saw a man walk past the apartment with a child in his arms, the other is the open window while it had to be closed. It has been proven that none of this happened.  
Correio da Manhã : how has this been proven? 
GA: [JT] is not credible : it identifies and recognizes different people (...). 
(...)
Correio da Manhã : did we fail to reconstruct the facts ?  
GA : It was not carried out ten or fifteen days after the events because the village was full of tourists and journalists. We were sure we could do it later. But that was not possible. 
Correio da Manhã : the theory of the abduction being invalidated, how does one construct the thesis of death ?  
GA : With the elements that existed, we could only end up with an accident, natural death, any cause not involving the intervention of a third party. We were consolidating evidence and moving forward to understand what might have happened to the little girl's body. 
Also taking into account the information from the British laboratory on the traces found inside the McCanns' car.
(...)
Correio da Manhã : What do you think happened to [the child's] body ?  
GA : Everything indicated that the body, after being in a specific place, had been moved from one car to another, twenty and some days later. Given the traces found in the car, the little girl had to be transported there. 
(...)
Correio da Manhã : did you feel any political pressure during the investigation ?  
GA : Inhibition. One of our mistakes was not having moved forward with this group, with everything that was at our disposal: tapping, monitoring. It would have been necessary to recover the clothes that the little girl wore when she left the kindergarten to go home. But there we thought : if we do it, we will say that we suspect the parents. This inhibition was present all the time.  
Correio da Manhã : and that led you to the abduction. 
GA : We first had to prove that there had not been an abduction to then focus on these people. 
Correio da Manhã : how does the pressure manifest itself ?  
Immediately on May 4, in the morning, with a call from the consul saying that the PJ was doing nothing. After an ambassador. Then an assessor ( assessor ) and an English Prime Minister.
(...) » 
* The adaptation of the book into a documentary and its distribution
24 . The book was adapted into a documentary with the same title. It was produced by the production company Valentim de Carvalho (" VC ") and released in DVD format from the end of April 2009.    
25 . The first part of the documentary aired on TVI channel on April 13, 2009. The second part aired on May 12 , 2009. Prior to the airing of the documentary, TVI channel released the following statement :     
“ The following program is a documentary based on the book by Gonçalo Amaral, ex-PJ inspector who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine in the Algarve. His version of events is dismissed by Maddie's parents, who continue to say it is a kidnapping case. 
The criminal procedure conducted by the Portuguese authorities ended with a discontinuation of the investigation, a decision contested by Gonçalo Amaral.
The broadcast of this documentary does not claim to designate those responsible, this task being the responsibility of justice, but seeks to shed light on a case that has remained a mystery for more than two years, and to provide elements to allow public opinion public to understand it. » 
26. In this documentary, GA appeared as the narrator. He reiterated the thesis defended in his book, opening the documentary with the following introduction:  
“ My name is Gonçalo Amaral, I was a judicial police investigator for 27 years. I coordinated the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann which occurred on May 3 , 2007. For the next 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted and that she died in the vacation apartment from Praia da Luz. Find out the whole truth about what happened that day. A death that many people want to hide. »    
27 . He concluded the documentary thus :   
" From what I know, Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5-A on May 3, 2007. I'm sure the truth about what happened (that Madeleine died in the apartment) will be one day revealed. The investigation was abruptly interrupted and there was a political and hasty classification without any follow-up. There are people who hide the truth but sooner or later the veneer will crack and the revelations will arise. Justice will then be done to [M.] (...) ”.  
28. The DVD was sold with the April 24, 2009 edition of the Correio da Manhã newspaper .  
* THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANTS
    * Requests for precautionary measures ( medidas cautelares )
        1. The request for precautionary measures to ban books and documentaries
29 . On an unspecified date in May 2009, the applicants, on their own behalf and on behalf of their children, lodged an application with the Lisbon Court against GA and the GP editions, the VC company and the television channel TVI, with a view to the application of precautionary measures ( medidas cautelares ), demanding the immediate withdrawal from points of sale of GA's book and the documentary sold in DVD format, the prohibition of any reprinting or reproduction, the prohibition of any assignment of author on the book or documentary, as well as the prohibition of any dissemination of opinions, interviews or any other publication or video defending the thesis supported by GA in his book.  
30. In a judgment of 18 February 2010, the Lisbon court granted the applicants' request.  
31. The defendants appealed against the judgment.  
32 . In a judgment of October 14, 2010, the Lisbon Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Lisbon Court of February 18, 2010. It found that GA's book revealed the author's opinion about the investigation by relating the facts that appeared in the investigation file and without bringing any new elements. It held that the applicants could not invoke a breach of their right to respect for private life since, admittedly for the legitimate purpose of finding their daughter, they had exposed the case in the public square, thus opening the way to expression of opinions and criticisms.  
2. The request for precautionary measures for the seizure of GA's property
33. On an unspecified date, on their own behalf and on behalf of their children, the applicants requested the Lisbon Court to order the provisional seizure ( arresto ) of any profit made by GA on the sale of the book, DVD or on any transfer of rights as well as the seizure of GA's bank accounts, of his shares in a company, of one third of his salary as manager of this company and of one third of his pension for the purpose of guaranteeing the payment of the compensation they were going to claim in the context of a civil liability action brought against GA for damage to their credit and reputation within the meaning of Article 484 of the Civil Code.  
34. In a judgment of 16 October 2009, the Lisbon court granted the applicants' request. The parties did not indicate whether GA appealed the judgment and, if so, what the outcome of that appeal was.

McCanns ‘case against Portugal’ bombs

By
Natasha Donn - 20th September 2022

European Court of Human Rights rules ‘no violations on right to reputation or on presumption of innocence’

The parents of missing Madeleine McCann heard today that their case against Portugal – lodged at the European Court of Human Rights after their long-running legal pursuit of former detective Gonçalo Amaral hit a brick wall – has also crashed into the buffers.

A statement from the court explains that the McCanns “alleged that there had been a violation of their right to reputation and to their right to be presumed innocent” in Mr Amaral’s book ‘Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira’, considered by the Portuguese court system as legitimate in terms of freedom of expression.

Says the statement: “The Court considered that, even assuming that the applicants’ reputation had been damaged, this was not on account of the argument put forward by the book’s author but rather as a result of the suspicions expressed against them, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the criminal investigation (the prosecutor’s office decided to take no further action in July 2008) and had led to intense media attention and much controversy.

“The information had thus been brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the book in question was published.

“It followed that the national authorities had not failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life.

“The Court also considered that in the Supreme Court’s judgments of January and March 2017 – concerning the civil claims lodged by the applicants – it had not made comments implying any guilt on the part of the applicants or even suggesting suspicions against them with regard to the circumstances in which their daughter had disappeared.

“The applicants’ complaint concerning their right to be presumed innocent was thus manifestly ill-founded”.

According to press reports in the UK – where newspapers continue to erroneously suggest this is a judgement between the McCanns and Gonçalo Amaral – the couple now have three months to appeal against the decision.

At some point, the court costs this legal pursuit has involved will require to be paid. And if the decisions continue in the vein they have taken over the last six years, these costs will fall to the McCanns.

According to the Daily Mail last week, this “may involve them dipping into their Madeleine Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned account, which according to the latest accounts has a balance of £931,500”.

natasha.donn@portugalresident.com

https://www.portugalresident.com/mccanns-case-against-portugal-bombs/

Thanks to Textusa for this regarding any possible appeal.