52 embodied the presumption of dolus in its Article 16[. A] few years ago, the Supreme Court of Justice […] revoked [this Article], considering that it harmed the presumption of innocence;” e) The effort to reform the penal system, in accordance with the rules of the “international human rights system,” culminated in the total reform of the former Penal Code with the introduction of a new modern democratic body of laws. The new Penal Code protects the honor and reputation of the individual, establishing among its norms the criminal categories of libel, slander, injuria and denigrating the memory of the dead, with sanctions of a pecuniary nature; namely, fines. Imprisonment is only applied in aggravated circumstances, and for no more than two years. It cannot be said, as the Commission does in the application, that these procedures should be considered indirect restrictions to or means that violate Article 13 of the Convention; f) In practice, the sanctions applied under Paraguay’s current penal system are exclusively pecuniary, and up to two years’ imprisonment can only be applied in very serious cases; this has not occurred; g) All those who filed proceedings against Mr. Canese are private individuals, who were affected by “his statements –evidently in a public situation– because they are partners in a company, which is also private.” The private complaint against Mr. Canese was filed by the directors of the private company, CONEMPA S.R.L., because “they [considered that] their honor and reputation had been harmed, as they had been alluded to directly,” since when Mr. Canese mentioned the “directors of Conempa,” he alluded to them personally; h) Juan Carlos Wasmosy never filed any civil or criminal action against Mr. Canese. Consequently, “any statement made by Mr. Canese with regard to [Mr.] Wasmosy should be considered apart, because the latter never filed a lawsuit against [Mr.] Canese;” i) The disputed issue in this case should be recognized as a problem between individuals that arose in the context of a public statement. Mr. Canese’s statements about the directors of a private company committing punishable acts are not of public interest; j) The protection of a legal attribute, for which the State has included a punishable act in its list of criminal categories in the Penal Code, should not be confused with the prosecution of a punishable act by the State, because the criminal procedure regime prevents any involvement of the Attorney General’s office in this type of punishable act. Consequently, its prosecution is always the responsibility of the individuals affected; k) The principle of penal proportionality was used when applying the punitive measure. Even if the new penal norm were used in this specific case, the prison sentence could be up to one year, because the punishable act was committed in an aggravated manner. It can be observed that the jurisdictional bodies that heard Mr. Canese’s case respected the principles of substantive proportionality;