18 country, until, in August 2002, the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay lifted the restriction definitively and granted him permission to leave the country, although he had been convicted and was subject to a final appeal for review. A court order was never issued for his imprisonment. The private lawyers he employed to handle his case worked correctly and presented “urgent reminders” in many instances. Regarding the State’s allegations about shortcomings owing to time-barred submissions and procedural inaction on their part, the witness indicated he did not have the authority or the knowledge to discuss with his lawyers whether what they were doing was correct, but all the appeals they submitted appear in the files, including the four appeals for review. There was “negligence” on the part of the judicial authorities during the criminal proceeding against him, and there were delays in providing justice by the judge of first instance, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay. The criminal proceeding started in October 1992 and the judge of first instance issued a judgment in March 1994, although it was “a fairly simple trial.” An appeal was filed in March 1994, and the Court of Appeal did not hand down a ruling until November 1997. In the case of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay “the delay in justice has been more obvious.” During the Government of President Wasmosy, the statements made by the witness had other consequences, in addition to restrictions to leaving the country. Regarding his freedom of expression, the witness “was silenced for quite a long time,” because the director of the private communications network that owned the newspaper “Noticias” and Channel 13, with which he worked, told him he was very satisfied with his work, but his comments and opinions had to cease “immediately”; the director asked him to stop working for the company so that the private communications network and its employees would not be prejudiced. He told Mr. Canese that he was receiving pressure directly from the President of the Republic. “The intention was not only to silence [him], but [to silence] any other person who wanted to emit an opinion on the issue and instill fear among the population,” so that the Government would receive as little criticism as possible. After he was convicted, he also had problems finding work; he was told that his services were wanted, but that he could not be employed because of his problems with Mr. Wasmosy. Mr. Canese began publishing his articles again at the end of 1995 or the beginning of 1996 in the newspaper “La Nación.” The criminal proceeding against the witness affected his family. It also caused him to exercise self-censorship, because he had to be careful about expressing his opinions and could not express his opinion freely. Mr. Canese did not take part in political and electoral activities again, because he considered it stressful, owing to the lack of “real protection” and the absence of the rule of law. He would like the Court to establish that no one may be persecuted as he was, and that freedom of expression should be protected in Paraguay. To make full reparation to him for the losses suffered, the State should make a “public acknowledgement.”