Whether the refusal to follow the defamation complaint was justified because the alleged remarks were not made to a third party.
The alleged statement was made only in the presence of the complainant and the accused; no third party could perceive it, so defamation was not established.
Defamation under Art. 173 CP requires communication to a third party or in a manner allowing third-party perception. Since the discussion occurred only between the two persons, the elements of the offence were absent and a conviction could be excluded with certainty.