harm to a person’s honor or privacy causes damage, without requiring verification. The system for determining the damage set in the Argentine Civil Code is the system designated for all cases involving damages, without considering in a particular way those cases where its designation is also the reason for the restriction of human right, such as freedom of expression. In this sense, upon establishing the existence of damage and the amount of compensation, the possible effect that the designation of a high amount may have on freedom of expression and on the debate itself of a democratic society in general will not play any role in the logical structure of the ruling, which will be limited to the estimation of the damage and to the amount of money involved in compensation for it. 81. Finally, the representatives indicated that neither existing law nor the deeply rooted jurisprudence, effectively incorporate into the legal system the principle of proportionality in the amounts designated for further liability. On the other hand, the risk of a lawsuit as in this case is not limited to the amount ordered as compensation, but there is also the costs of the opposing party, plus interests, to which the sum may end up paying more than double the amount fixed as compensation for the moral damage, which must be added to the expense generated by the conviction upon publication of the judgment. Therefore, they concluded that Article 1071 bis of the Civil Code does not meet the minimum requirements to be considered a legitimate restriction on freedom of expression, and they requested the Court to declare that the State failed to comply with Article 2 of the Convention. 82. The State argued that in the context of its public policy on legislative reforms in attempts to adapt into the Argentine legal system concerning freedom of information and expression with the American Convention, after the reform of the Criminal Code as part of compliance with the Judgment in the case of Kimel, the Argentine legal system should be compatible with international standards on the matter; "the civil and criminal legislation in force, with the interpretation that the current Supreme Court of the Nation gives to it, is not incompatible with the American Convention." Argentina recalled that the American Convention recognizes the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, and that the exercise of each fundamental right recognized in the Convention must be carried out with respect and the safeguard of the other fundamental rights. Hence, a different policy reform could result in tension between freedom of expression and the right to honor and intimacy, leaving certain situations unprotected. To resolve the conflict between these two rights, a case by case examination is necessary, according to the characteristics and circumstances or each case. Thus, judicial activity thereby takes on vital importance, wherein the legislation is interpreted in each particular case to find a proper resolution to the conflict of rights. 83. In addition, the State indicated that in the case of civil sanctions, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Nation has upheld the doctrine of actual malice in a constant and uniform manner, setting appropriate standards, which are in force in the country, and there is strong jurisprudential evolution aimed at optimizing the Argentine legal system. Finally, it noted that the public policy on freedom of expression implemented by the State has been adapted in a legislative, institutional, and jurisprudential manner with international standards. B. Considerations of the Court 84. The Inter-American Commission did not allege a violation of the obligations under Article 2 of the American Convention (supra para. 76 ). These allegations were 27