16 hydroelectric power plant; also, concerning the company’s alleged tax evasion, based on a decree issued by former President Stroessner. The reports made direct reference to the participation of Mr. Wasmosy, as President of this company, in allegedly punishable acts committed during the Stroessner dictatorship. The reports were not investigated. In 1991, when Paraguay opened up to democracy, the witness took part in the Asunción municipal elections for the party Asunción para Todos; he was the first candidate for councilor and was elected. The party put his name forward as candidate for the presidency of the Republic in the 1993 elections. In August 1992, while the witness was a candidate for the presidency of the Republic, and when being questioned by the press about Mr. Wasmosy’s candidacy, he stated that Mr. Wasmosy had amassed “an immense fortune,” because he had been President of CONEMPA, which had been contracted to carry out the principal construction works of the Itaipú hydroelectric power plant, owing to connections with the former dictator. In view of these facts, it was not in the country’s interests that Mr. Wasmosy should be a candidate for the presidency of the Republic; particularly, in Paraguay’s “first free elections.” He had sufficient grounds and evidence to make such statements. When the witness made those statements concerning Mr. Wasmosy, he had no expectation of being elected President of the Republic, because he represented a small party; his purpose was to inform the voters. In these elections, Juan Carlos Wasmosy was elected President of the Republic. After the witness had made the statements about Mr. Wasmosy, Hermann Baumann, Oscar Aranda and Ramón Jiménez Gaona, colleagues of Mr. Wasmosy in CONEMPA, filed a criminal action against Mr. Canese. In his statements, the witness had not mentioned these colleagues, because his criticism was addressed only at Mr. Wasmosy, since the latter had become “very wealthy” during the dictatorship through business dealings. In the course of the criminal proceeding, when making a statement during the preliminary examination and at the conciliation hearing, Mr. Canese declared that, in the statements he had made, he had not referred to the complainants, but only to Mr. Wasmosy, because his interest was “the issue of the presidency of the Republic,” “the public interest [and] the issue of Itaipú.” During the criminal proceeding, the alleged victim’s lawyers provided the evidence in time, but the judge registered its presentation after the time had elapsed, claiming he had too much work. Mr. Canese was not allowed to exercise the right to “present evidence.” The day after he delivered the judgment convicting the witness, the judge was “promoted by the President of the Republic.” In 1999, with the entry into force of the new Penal Code, the witness filed an appeal for review, which was never decided. In 2000, he repeated this remedy, “expanding the grounds.” In May 2001 and May 2002, the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay declared the said remedies inadmissible. They filed a new appeal for review based on “the same or very similar arguments,” and it was decided in his favor by the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on December 11, 2002. The judgment by which the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay absolved him does not guarantee that he or any other person