WILLEMSTAD — Investigative journalist Nardy Cramm has formally appealed her conviction in the case numbered CUR2025H00032, claiming that the ruling handed down against her infringes on the principles of freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial. The appeal, filed with the Joint Court of Justice, outlines a series of legal and constitutional arguments in her defense, including alleged procedural flaws and judicial bias. 

Cramm was previously convicted of slander and libel for a series of articles published in Knipselkrant Curaçao, a digital news platform she founded. The articles were critical of certain public figures and institutions in Curaçao, prompting legal action against her. In the appeal, Cramm argues that her reporting falls under the scope of journalistic duty in a democratic society and should be protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which safeguards freedom of expression. 

The document submitted to the court highlights what Cramm’s legal team describes as “an unlawful criminal prosecution” and states that the procedures followed in her original trial did not comply with the standards required for an impartial hearing. She specifically contests the objectivity of Judge Koenraad, who presided over the original case and had previously recused himself from other matters involving Cramm due to questions about impartiality. 

In her supplementary grounds for appeal, Cramm also points to violations of the Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, arguing that the press serves as a public watchdog, especially when uncovering allegations of government corruption and financial mismanagement. She maintains that the court’s conviction not only punishes her personally but also sets a dangerous precedent for independent journalism in Curaçao. 

Her defense further criticizes the judgment for failing to properly consider the truthfulness of her publications, many of which were based on official documents, previous legal proceedings, and public records. According to her, these sources substantiate her reporting and demonstrate her intent to inform the public rather than to defame individuals. 

The case has sparked considerable public interest, especially among advocates of free speech and journalistic independence in the Caribbean. A ruling on the appeal is expected later this year.