Convention; rather, it was its application by the State’s judicial authorities that gave rise to this incompatibility. It pointed out that the civil law should have been applied pursuant to inter-American standards so that civil damages should not entail the inhibition or selfcensorship of those who exercise their right to freedom of expression. It added that the sanction imposed did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality. In this regard, the Commission noted that, when establishing civil sanctions for possible abuses in the dissemination of information involving officials and public matters, the standard of “actual malice” should be used to assess them. According to this standard, the public official or public figure who alleges the harm must prove that the person disseminating the information did so fully intending to cause harm and with knowledge that it was false information or with reckless disregard for the truth. The Commission noted that, according to the initial judgment – and its subsequent confirmation in cassation – the courts of justice concluded that, when disseminating the erroneous information, the journalists were not acting with malice or intending to cause harm. 54. The Commission also noted that the dissemination of erroneous information in good faith is “inevitable in a pluralist, free and democratic society; therefore, imposing a requirement of absolute truth for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, especially in relation to matters of public interest, such as abuse of power and corruption, would affect the very essence of this right.” On this basis, the Commission considered that the subsequent liability of journalists should be excluded, even if the facts of public interest that were reported were erroneous or inexact, when journalists acted with reasonable diligence in seeking and verifying the information divulged. Moreover, given the “urgent” nature of the exercise of news journalism, it is not always possible to ensure the complete veracity of a news item, based on all the possible or imaginable sources identified a posteriori. In conclusion, the Commission understood that, although the journalists had divulged erroneous information, they did so without full knowledge that the information they were disseminating was false; furthermore, they did not act with manifest negligence in their quest for the truth regarding the news story. Therefore, the State violated Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Also, in exercise of its competence iura novit curia, since this violation occurred as a result of the application of a law that did not meet the requirements of strict legality, the Commission concluded that the State also failed to comply with Articles 9 and 2 of the Convention. 55. Furthermore, the Commission pointed out that, in practice, the reference made by the Trial Court to verification of the facts by consulting the Judiciary’s Press Office resulted “in requiring that this source should be consulted obligatorily, or at least preferably, in order to prove the said corroboration or diligent conduct.” It indicated that journalists should have the freedom to choose their journalistic sources; thus, the State’s imposition of a preferential source signified an exaggerated restriction of freedom of expression and could also give rise to a high risk of censorship. 56. Lastly, the Commission concluded that it had insufficient elements to determine whether the State of Costa Rica had violated Articles 8(2)(h) and 25(1) of the American Convention as argued by the petitioners in the procedure before the Commission. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 8 indicated by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief, the Commission considered that its analysis “was not focused on the failure to provide the reasons for the domestic rulings, but rather on the fact that the reasons adopted [by the domestic courts] were not in keeping with Article 13 of the American Convention.” 57. The representatives argued, first, that the newspaper article written by the 17