7. On June 5, 2007 the petitioner submitted additional information, which was remitted to the State on June 21, 2007. In that same message the Commission reiterated to the State the request to suspend the effect of the conviction, giving the State five days to reply. 8. On August 29, 2007 the State submitted a communication indicating that the respective authorities were collecting information in order to respond the petition. 9. ON February 8, 2008 the State submitted information related to the petition which was remitted to the petitioner on February, 25, 2008. 10. On February 28, 2008 the petitioner sent information to the IACHR with files pertaining to different actions taken with regard to the process of the execution of this judgment. This communication was sent to the State on April 2, 2008 requesting observation within one month. At the time of approval of this Report, the State had not presented its response. III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The petitioner 11. The petitioner and alleged victim stated that on May 23, 2003 he published an article in the newspaper “Así es la Noticia,” in which he indicated that the then President of the National Assembly, William Lara, used funds from the Assembly’s Workers’ and Retirees’ Savings Bank in an improper way. The petitioner showed that the article reproduced part of a report from the office of the Superintendent of Savings Banks stating that former Deputy Lara had siphoned 1,701,723,317.25 Bolívars. According to the petitioner, the article mentions that this alleged irregularity was reported in a message from the Superintendent of Savings Banks to Mr. William Lara’s office. The petitioner stated that he was apprised of this information since he was an attorney for the union and the Retirees Association of the National Assembly. 12. The petitioner indicated that, because of the article, on December 31, 2003 Mr. William Lara filed a criminal complaint against him in the 36th Criminal Circuit Court of the Caracas Metropolitan Area for the crime of defamation. He indicated that on January 9, 2004 that Court deferred jurisdiction to the Criminal Trial Court, without determining the admissibility of the complaint.