“mandates a duty of the media which, in good faith, should proceed to make the corresponding corrections.” The State also argued that the proceedings against the civil defendants had complied “fully” with all the procedural guarantees and rules in force in the Republic of Costa Rica. It added that, in the instant case, it was not the Costa Rican State that “prosecuted” the journalists, but a private individual “in exercise of his right to justice.” 61. With regard to the alleged violation of judicial guarantees indicated by the representatives, the State emphasized that the civil judgment that convicted the journalists was substantiated and that the civil liability imposed on them was subjective, stressing that “it is one matter if the judgment does not contain a statement of reasons or has not paid attention to the arguments of the defense, and another if its decision does not satisfy the latter.” It indicated that the judgment considered that, the false attribution of the opening of a criminal case for extortion based on liquor contraband to J.C.T.R., who was well-known to the community and to the police officers under his responsibility, had been “extremely harmful for his public image, especially considering that La Nación is a serious newspaper with national coverage and international recognition.” It argued that the domestic court had taken into consideration: (a) his personal circumstances (assistant police chief of a rural area); (b) the contextual circumstances (that the case related to an area severely impacted by the illegal trafficking of merchandise, particularly liquor; (c) the information subsequently provided to the journalists and the newspaper (that the said criminal case did not exist); (d) the failure to rectify the information; (e) the harm to the honor of J.C.T.R. among his coworkers and the community (he was jeered at and called names such as “choricero” [scam artist] in relation to liquor contraband, and even transferred to another post), and (f) the scope and credibility of the newspaper that published the story, which increased the scale of the harm. B. Considerations of the Court b.1 Importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society 62. The Court’s case law has provided broad content to the right to freedom of thought and expression established in Article 13 of the Convention. Thus, the Court has indicated that this article protects the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds. 60 It has also indicated that freedom of thought and expression has both an individual dimension and a social dimension, and this has resulted in a series of rights that are protected by the said article. 61 The Court has affirmed that the two dimensions are equally important and must be fully guaranteed simultaneously in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the right to freedom of thought and expression in keeping with the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention. 62 60 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 30, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446, para. 97. 61 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 74, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 97. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 149, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 97. 62 19