4 An imminent threat looms over the alleged victims that a judgment will be executed peremptorily that, prima facie, appears to have aspects that are incompatible with Article 13 of the Convention. The only factor that protects the alleged victims from the violation of their human rights being consummated and preserves them from the “threats” of the Costa Rican court is the order for urgent measures issued by the President; d) that the gravity and the irreparability of the situation refer to individual rights recognized in the Convention that the States Parties have assumed an obligation to respect and guarantee. A serious threat to their right to express themselves freely hangs over the alleged victims, should judgment No. 1320-99 be executed. The explanatory statement of the draft Law for the Protection of the Freedom of the Press, which the President of the Republic of Costa Rica proposed to the Legislative Assembly on November 30, 1998, states that “[i]t has been maintained … that the press is obliged to confirm the veracity of all the news that it obtains from its sources, which is evidently impossible, unless it applies a real self-censorship that would impair the freedom to disseminate information.” If the suspension of the execution of judgment is lifted, freedom of expression and democratic values will be harmed by the necessary delay in processing the case (periculum in mora). There is a reasonable possibility of a risk that the rights alleged by the petitioners will be violated (fumus boni iuris) if the judgment is executed, so that the requirement of extreme gravity is met by the threat to the freedom of expression of the alleged victims; e) that if the judgment is executed, it would cause irreparable damage, effects that could never be eliminated retroactively. The execution of judgment would entail the registration of Mauricio Herrera Ulloa in the “Judicial Register of Offenders”, which would cause him an irreparable harm. The reparation, if appropriate, would not serve for the restitutio in integrum of the harm that could be caused to the alleged victims. Suspension of the execution of judgment until the case has been processed before the inter-American system also promotes the State’s interests, because if it is established that the petitioners were right and that the criminal sentence violates the Convention, the result would be that the payments resulting from the proceeding on compensation that the journalist, Herrera Ulloa, and La Nación must pay to Mr. Przedborski, according to the judgment, would imply that the State and not Mr. Przedborski would be obliged to compensate those who had paid the compensation to the complainant. Although this is not entirely irreparable for the alleged victims, it could entail an unnecessary prolongation of the harmful situation. Moreover, the State would suffer irreparable harm by reimbursing an amount that had been collected by the complainant, over whom the Court lacks jurisdiction; and f) that, with regard to the implications that a decision by the Court on the adoption of provisional measures could have for deciding the merits of the case, the urgent or provisional measures are not an advance notice of the opinion on the merits of the case, but rather a summary pronouncement, based on incomplete knowledge. The suspension of the execution of judgment is required in order to conserve the possibilities of success of the friendly settlement procedure before the Commission; it will also be useful to avoid irreparable damage to the alleged victims and to the State itself, if the organs of the system conclude that the judgment of the domestic courts violated the Convention. Even if the organs of the system conclude that the Convention was not violated, nothing would stand in the way of the subsequent execution of the