31. Additionally, the State asserted that the interview was not backed by the workers Mr. Lagos del Campo supposedly represented, which proves its illegitimacy. The State also underscored that Mr. Lagos del Campo had a history of committing infractions in the workplace, “since he had been suspended by the company once before.” This was reportedly confirmed by the Second Labor Court of Lima, which established that Mr. Lagos del Campo was a repeat offender. 32. The State further indicated that Mr. Lagos del Campo contradicted himself in his defense, because although he admitted having made statements to the magazine “La Razón,” he denied having insulted any member of the company, as the statements published were not his exact words. The State argued that in light of this situation the alleged victim should have exercised his right of correction. 33. The State asserted that Article 11 of the Convention protects the right to one’s honor and dignity and that the correction provided in Article 14 of the Convention is a suitable mechanism for the protection of those rights. According to the State, when a person is publicly insulted by means of inaccurate information, the affected person has the right to demand that the information be corrected. Thus, it indicated that “Correction is one way to assert liability for the abusive exercise of communication rights in detriment of the honor of others.” In the opinion of the State, the alleged victim should have “at least brought the appropriate administrative or legal proceedings against the magazine ‘La Razón.’” Alfredo Lagos del Campo’s omission to request the correction of the statements attributed to him in the interview with “La Razón” must therefore be understood as an admission of the authorship of its content. 34. As for the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, the State maintained that the entire case brought for Mr. Lagos del Campo’s dismissal proceeded normally, although its outcome was unfavorable to the interests of the alleged victim. The State reiterated that the existence of an unfavorable judgment is not per se an irregularity; nor does it imply bias on the part of the court, as it does not necessarily mean that the court has ignored the arguments and evidence of the losing party. The State indicated that Mr. Lagos del Campo was able to file appeals without any kind of obstacles. Furthermore, it argued that both the company and Mr. Lagos del Campo had the same procedural rights to present evidence, witnesses, and arguments, as well as the same deadlines and mechanisms for doing so. 35. The State argued, first, that the decisions to dismiss Mr. Lagos del Campo’s appeals were reasoned decisions. It explained that, “The right to a statement of the grounds of court decisions does not guarantee that such statement must be of a specific length. Accordingly, its constitutional content is respected, provided that there is a statement of the legal reasoning, which goes beyond the mere mention of the provisions applicable to the case to include the explanation and justification of why the case falls or does not fall within the scope of those provisions, as well as consistency between what is sought and what is decided, […] and that by itself expresses sufficient justification for the decision made, even if it is brief or concise, or the grounds are stated by referring to the laws that support the decision without quoting them verbatim.” It maintained that, “The decision of the court of second instance that reversed the trial court’s favorable decision contained a proper statement of the grounds, indicating that it found a serious infraction, statutorily defined in Article 5(h) of Law 24514.” According to the Peruvian State, that Court noted in its decision that “Alfredo Lagos del Campo’s statements to the magazine ‘La Razón’ were an insult not only to the honor of the company’s directors but also to his coworkers.” The State noted that this was in addition to ¨Alfredo Lagos del Campo’s repeated acts of insubordination at work, as he had been suspended by the company on a prior occasion, as stated in the judgment of the Second Labor Court.” 36. The State additionally maintained that Mr. Lagos del Campo’s right to be heard by the courts was guaranteed. It asserted that Mr. Lagos del Campo filed a petition for a constitutional remedy [amparo] asking the court to set aside the August 8, 1991 judgment that found his claim to be baseless. He argued that the Second Labor Court had failed to process a pleading that he filed until the day after it had issued its decision against him. The State indicated that the Chamber ruled the amparo petition inadmissible because “An amparo case cannot challenge or render invalid court decisions issued in a regular proceeding.” The State explained that “Amparo petitions against court decisions require, as an essential procedural prerequisite, proof of a clear offense that seriously jeopardizes the protected content of a constitutional right.” The State 6