84 has been established in the instant case that Mr. Canese was tried and condemned under the 1914 Penal Code. However, after delivery of the judgment of second instance on November 4, 1997, which declared that he was responsible for the offense of slander, a new Penal Code entered into force on November 26, 1998. Article 370 of the 1914 Penal Code, which regulated the offense of slander, established that the person guilty of this offense “shall be punished with from two to twenty-two months’ imprisonment and a fine of up to two thousand pesos”; consequently, the fine could not be imposed as the sole sanction, but had to be accompanied by imprisonment. Based on this norm, when deciding the remedies of appeal and annulment filed by Mr. Canese and by the complainants against the judgment of first instance, the Third Chamber of the Court of Criminal Appeal convicted him on November 4, 1997, for the offense of slander to the principal sanction of two months’ imprisonment and to the additional sanction of payment of a fine of two million nine hundred and nine thousand and ninety guaranis. 183. As has been established, one year and twenty-two days after the delivery of this judgment of second instance, a new Penal Code entered into force, which, inter alia, modified the sanctions that the judge could impose for the offense of slander. The new Code reduced the minimum and maximum sanctions for the offense of slander and established a fine as an alternative sanction to the penalty of imprisonment. The new Code established that “[w]hen the act is carried out before a multitude or by dissemination in publications [...], or repeatedly over an extended period, the penalty c[ould] be increased to imprisonment for up to one year or a fine.” This change signified that the legislator wished to reduce the penalty for the offense of slander. 184. As has been indicated above (supra paras. 70 and 71), the Court acknowledges the importance of the ruling of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on December 11, 2002, admitting the appeal for review filed on August 12, 2002, by Mr. Canese and his lawyers, annulling the sentences and absolving Mr. Canese from guilt and pardoning him. However, in order to consider the alleged violation of the principle of retroactivity, it is necessary to examine the period from November 26, 1998 to December 11, 2002, during which Ricardo Canese and his lawyers filed several appeals for review, requesting, inter alia, the annulment of the sentences and the review of the judgment, and basing these petitions on the entry into force of the new Penal Code in 1998. During this period, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay declared that these appeals for review were inadmissible, one of them on the basis that it did not “offer ‘any evidence or indicate new facts’ that would justify applying a more favorable norm to the convicted person.”158 (supra para. 69(46)). 185. However, in decision and judgment No. 1362 delivered by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on December 11, 2002, which absolved Canese, it indicated that: The appeal for review filed should prosper, because, in the first place, the legitimate cause for review (Art. 481, para. 4, of the Code of Criminal Procedure), which establishes that: “when, subsequent to the judgment, new facts supervene ... makes it evident that ... the act committed is not punishable or a more favorable norm should be 158 Decision and judgment No. 374 issued by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on May 6, 2002 (copy of the file of the criminal proceeding against Ricardo Canese for the offenses of slander and injuria before the First Criminal Trial Court, file of attachments to the brief answering the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments, tome II, attachment 4, folio 1200).