system, which obviously has a bearing on this case [which started] with a complaint filed by none other than the President of the Republic.” 20. They added that the newspaper El Universo has been subject to extensive and aggravated harassment, and that journalist Emilio Palacio Urrutia in particular has been the victim of stigmatization and persecution by State agencies. They alleged that the harassment of El Universo has worsened in the past five years. According to the petition, “In 2007, President Rafael Correa directly attacked the newspaper El Universo in a presidential broadcast, using language such as, ‘garbage,’ ‘bad faith,’ ‘shysters,’ ‘liars,’ ‘ignorant,’ ‘idiots,’ ‘personal enemies.’” In 2008, “President Correa accused the newspaper El Universo of not paying taxes, saying, “Do not fall prey to the crooked, many of them, media outlets that don’t pay their taxes—Crooks!” He also reportedly accused them of being corrupt: “This is what corruption is like, this is what the disinformation of the corrupt media is like. People, don’t allow yourselves to be insulted by this newspaper, by this rag; a shame.” The petitioners stated that in 2010 the President stated, referring to the newspaper, “This is the free press. In fact, this is the vulture press. It’s not condemning the carrion, the putrefaction—it’s creating it, because that’s what it lives on, this carrion, this rot, this pestilence. Let’s not believe anything from this vulture press, compatriots.” The petitioners indicated that the newspaper El Universo—with more than 90 years of history— is the most widely read paper in Guayaquil. 21. The petitioners argue that they have met the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement, since they availed themselves of the valid, suitable, and available domestic remedies, including the extraordinary remedy of the petition for cassation. The petitioners indicated that, contrary to the State’s argument, the action to enforce constitutional rights is extraordinary and does not constitute a suitable remedy. The extraordinary action to enforce constitutional rights is discretionary and does not have the effect of suspending the harm; its purpose would not be the review of the criminal case but rather the analysis of the constitutionality of the laws. 22. Finally, they asked the IACHR to deny the State’s request for recusal on the grounds of its manifest inadmissibility. B. Position of the State 23. The State indicated that on March 21, 2011, Rafael Correa filed a private criminal complaint before the Supervisory Criminal Judge of Guayas against Messrs. Emilio Palacio, Carlos Pérez Lapentti, Carlos Pérez Barriga, and César Pérez Barriga for the “alleged offense of serious criminal defamation of an authority, provided for in Articles 489, 491, and 493 of the Criminal Code,” based on an op-ed piece published in the newspaper El Universo by Emilio Palacio. According to the State, “in his complaint, Mr. Correa stated that ‘[…] the defendants’ intent in that publication […] is […] to accuse me of acts that are criminal, illegal, improper, and unlawful’ and that therefore ‘I am not accusing them of the crime of desacato […] I am accusing them of making defamatory accusations against me [injurias calumniosas] […].’” It added that, “On July 20, 2011, the Fifteenth Supervisory Criminal Court of Guayas issued the respective judgment, which stated: ‘considering that the existence of the crime and defendants’ responsibility for it have been proven, I find […] all of the defendants guilty, imposing the respective sentence and fine and awarding damages to the complainant.” 24. The State said that, “On July 22, Rafael Correa filed his appeal, and on July 22 and 26 the defendants filed their appeals and motions to vacate the trial court’s judgment.” It explained that “the hearing on the appeal was bifurcated: the first part was held on September 16, 2011, and the second on September 20, before the Second Criminal and Traffic Division of the Provincial Court of Justice of Guayas. The appeal judgment upheld ‘the decision of the trial judge in its entirety.’” The State noted that “the defendants filed a petition for cassation on September 27, 28, and 30, 2011, respectively. On October 4, the Court declined to hear Emilio Palacio’s petition for cassation and upheld his conviction, while the petitions for cassation filed by the other defendants were admitted.” The State of Ecuador indicated that when the petition was filed with the IACHR, the petition for cassation was still being litigated. 5