Chaves and Ronald Moya Chacón, and also the Minister of Public Security, La Nación, and the State of Costa Rica to the joint payment of five million colones (approximately US$9,600 at the date of the facts) for non-pecuniary damage and one million colones (approximately US$1,900 at the date of the facts) for personal costs. 53 E. Remedy of cassation before the Supreme Court of Justice 46. On January 30 and February 7, 2007, Messrs. Moya Chacón and Parrales Chaves, La Nación, and the Minister of Public Security, R.R.M., filed a remedy of cassation against the Trial Court’s judgment of January 10, 2007, requesting its annulment. 54 47. Following an oral hearing on May 29, 2007, on December 20, 2007, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Supreme Court of Justice”) confirmed the Trial Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court of Justice characterized the newspaper article as a piece of “informative journalism,” noting that the right to information existed insofar as “the information provided is true” because, to the contrary, this type of action is subject to the “criminal and pecuniary liability” that may arise from the harm caused. 55 It also considered that the Trial Court’s ruling had found proved that fault-based liability existed because there was “clearly” a causal nexus between the conduct and the harm caused, “since erroneous information had been reported on situations that could easily have been corroborated.” 56 It added, with regard to the objective liability of La Nación, that “a media outlet should endeavor to corroborate the veracity of the information it provides because, due precisely to the nature of the activity, it is subject to the liability it may incur in case of imprudent or negligent conduct.” 57 48. On April 29, 2008, La Nación made a payment for the full six million colones to which all the defendants had been sentenced jointly and severally. 58 53 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 23). In particular, the said judgment considered that La Nación and the State, respectively, should respond for objective civil liability for the harm caused to the plaintiff due to the “negligent actions in exercise of their functions” together with the said physical persons, all pursuant to the said article 1048 of the Civil Code. Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 21). Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Third Chamber, Cassation judgment of December 20, 2007 (evidence file, folio 37). 54 55 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Third Chamber, Cassation judgment of December 20, 2007 (evidence file, folios 40 and 41). 56 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Third Chamber, Cassation judgment of December 20, 2007 (evidence file, folio 40). 57 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Third Chamber, Cassation judgment of December 20, 2007 (evidence file, folio 40). 58 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Ruling of September 28, 2009 (evidence file, folio 35). 15