subject's private life that is not justified by the superior interests of the community. Especially when images and names of children are involved, with professional exposure and without prudential matters relating to the parentage of these children, spiritual mortification, not only of man as such, but in his relationship with them, behavior that reveals the arbitrary nature of interference in the intimate sphere of the plaintiff, not justified by the vigorous debate of ideas on matters of public interest nor the transparency that the public man’s performance should be in the exercise of his highest responsibilities. 27 40. Subsequent to that decision, the process of execution of the judgment began, and, on February 26, 2002, a commercial court ordered, at the request of the Editorial Profile, the meeting of creditors. 28 After several circumstances related to the legal and patrimonial situation of the Editorial, 29 the implementation process continued against the co-defendant, Mr. Hector D'Amico, who was then working in another communication medium. 30 On October 22, 2003, a civil court ordered "to proceed with the execution until [Mr.] D'Amico paid in full the amounts due plus interest and costs of execution." 31 On February 18, 2004, the same court addressed an official letter to the company where Mr. D 'Amico worked, ordering "repossession of assets and/or any sum that for any reason [Mr.] D'Amico received monthly [...] , to cover the sum of [one hundred and eight thousand, five hundred and fourteen U.S. dollars, and seventy-five cents] with over [thirty thousand pesos] budgeted for interest and costs." 32 The victim then underwent this repossession from March 2004 until November 2005. 33 For its part, the Editorial Profile eventually covered the amount corresponding to the litigation fees in the amount of $105,808.50 (one hundred and five thousand, eight hundred and eight pesos, and fifty cents). 34 27 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, supra note 26, folios 530 a 533, considered 13 and 16. 28 Cf. Brief presented by the attorney of the plaintiff in the civil suit requesting judicial approval of a new assessment of payment for compensation for court fees. (case file of annexes to the Report No. 82/10, annex 1, tome I, folios 4 and seq.); brief requesting end to the embargo filed on March 4, 2002, by the representative of the Editorial Perfil S.A. (case file of annexes to the Report No. 82/10, annex 13, tome I, folio 567), and brief in which the attorney of the defendant reported the openining of the preventive summons to the civil court, requesting the suspension of the proceedings and that the precautionary measures be revoked (case file of annexes to the Report No. 82/10, annex 14, tome I, folios 569 and seq.). 29 Cf. Brief requesting suspension of the sentence and the lifting of the embargo presented on March 4, 2002, by the attorney of the Editorial Perfil S.A. supra note 28; brief in which the attorney of the defendant communicated to the civil court regarding the opening of the preventive summons and to revoke the precautionary measures, supra note 28, and Statement of Mr. Jorge Fontevecchia, supra note 16. 30 Cf. Statement of Mr. Héctor D’Amico, supra note 16, and Certification of April 23, 2009 issued by the Chief of Severance Pay and Personnel Administration of the Nación S.A. (case file of annexes to the Report No. 82/10, annex 15, folios 576 and seq.). 31 Cf. Notification license addressed to Mr. Héctor D´Amico by the National Court on First Instance on Civil Matters No. 36 (case file of annexes to the Report No. 82/10, annex, 16, tome I, folio 580). 32 Cf. Official letter issued on February 18, 2004 by the National Court on First Instance on Civil Matters No. 36 addressed to the President of the Board of Directors of the newspaper Nación S.A. (case file of annexes to the Report No. 82/10, annex 17, tome I, folios 582 and 583). 33 Cf. Statement of Mr. Héctor D’Amico, supra note 16, and Certificación of 23 of abril of 2009, supra note 30, folio 576. 34 folio 29. Cf. Report of Merits No. 82/10 of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, supra note 4, 16