17 who reports corruption involving a public figure will not be subjected to criminal proceedings. According to the witness, the Supreme Court’s last decision “was partial and delayed reparation.” The State has not granted him any reparation for the losses suffered. In relation to the costs, he has just received notification of the Supreme Court’s ruling establishing that the complainants must pay the costs, although the acquittal was handed down eighteen months ago. The Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay has not made any “offer regarding his losses, or regarding the essential issue, which is [the] most important.” In 1999, the witness exercised the functions of Deputy Minister of Mines and Energy, owing to his active participation in “other social movements,” which had demanded that the then President appoint him to the position. He was Deputy Minister for only eleven months, because he was removed from office for criticizing the President of the Republic for not defending national interests before Brazil with regard to the Itaipú hydroelectric power plant. As a result of the criminal action, the witness’s ability to leave the country was restricted, with the intention of “sanctioning him in advance.” When Harvard University issued an invitation to him in 1993, “an attempt was made to detain [him] and to prevent [him] from leaving the country,” allegedly because he was involved in a criminal proceedings. He was “systematically” denied authorization to leave the country from the time he was convicted in March 1994 until July 1997, because he was “forbidden by the judge of the case.” In light of the foregoing incident, when he was invited to Brazil in 1994 by that country’s Workers’ Party for the launching of Lula da Silva’s candidacy, he requested the corresponding permission and offered a material surety, because, under the previous legislation, there was no provision under which he could be retained, since he was “domiciled” in Paraguay with his family and his professional career. However, the judge denied him permission to leave. In June 1994, the judge again denied the witness permission to leave when the Bicameral Investigation Committee invited him to Brazil to investigate alleged acts of corruption in Itaipú in conjunction with Brazilian parliamentarians. To counter this situation, on the advice of his lawyers, he filed an action on unconstitutionality. He filed several “urgent reminders” for a ruling in this action, until finally, in 1999, the Court issued a negative decision. He received other invitations to scientific and professional congresses and activities, but was not allowed to leave. He was able to leave the country for the first time in July 1997, when he requested permission to go to Uruguay to give testimony in a trial and, when his request was denied, he filed a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted. He was unable to leave the country from 1994 until July 1997. In November 1997, he again requested an exit permit and the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay did not grant him the permit, even though the judgment was not final. Several times, the Court failed to decide the habeas corpus he had filed, which meant that he was unable to leave the country. In 1999, when he was appointed Deputy Minister of Mines and Energy, he filed a “general” writ of habeas corpus to be able to leave the country, and this was denied. The functions of a deputy minister involve frequent trips outside the country, so he had to file a writ of habeas corpus each time he needed to travel. He was granted the permits he requested while he was Deputy Minister, because he was exercising a public position. When the witness ceased to be Deputy Minister, he had to file a writ of habeas corpus each time he wanted to leave the