The report has appeared on various websites and this, the judge, said, ‘negates any sense of urgency about removal or rectification’.
For context: when the report was about to be released to the public, Watchtower started a preliminary injunction procedure to stop publication of the report.
They lost, and the report was published the same day.
Watchtower appealed the verdict.
They now lost this appeal, as the judge recognizes that a preliminary injunction doesn't make sense anymore anyway as the report has already been published.
Watchtower also demanded that the Minister of Justice would send a letter to the House of Representatives instructing them to disregard the report.
To that the judge ruled that 1) he has no authority to tell the Minister what to do and 2) the Minister has no authority to tell the Representatives what to do. That demand was thus rejected as unconstitutional.
Imho the next logical move for Watchtower could be to start a regular court case, but a newspaper reports they are considering petitioning the Supreme Court. Given the logical arguments of the judge and the nature of preliminary injunction proceedings, I don't think Watchtower will get lucky there.