expensive presents, and possibly other favors, by the then President to those who appeared in the photographs that were published (Fontevecchia and D’Amico). 19 c) “Excessive language” was used, contrary to the preceding cases, in particular in the Kimel case, in which the Court stated that “Mr. Kimel did not use excessive language and based his opinion on the events verified by the journalist himself.” 20 To the contrary, one or other of the Messrs. Mémoli, or both, accused the complainants as possible authors or accessories to the offense of fraud, referred to them as “criminals,” “unscrupulous,” “corrupt” and said that “they used subterfuges (tretas) and deceit (manganetas).” III. Conclusion 20. Based on all the above, I ratify my full endorsement of the judgment and issue this separate opinion in which I have emphasized some particularly important aspects. Alberto Pérez Pérez Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 19 Cf. Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico v. Argentina, supra, paras. 62 to 64. 20 Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 92. 7