substantiated. 96 However, said hearing was postponed. 97 The hearing was set for September 16, 2011, through an order issued on September 14, 2011, and notified on September 15, 2011. As the hearing was suspended the day it began, the date of 22 September was set for continuation. 98 Emilio Palacio Urrutia and his lawyers did not participate in the hearing. 99 The final hearing was held on September 20, 2011. 100 67. On September 22, 2011, the Provincial Court issued its judgment and ruled on the remedies for annulment and appeal filed by the parties. Regarding the motion for annulment filed by the defendants, it decided to reject it considering that "as there were no grounds for annulment, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure and other applicable legal regulations, nor omissions of formalities that affect or may influence the validity of the process, and that the competence of the judges who have acted has not been affected in any way, including in this second instance […] all proceedings are declared valid”. 101 68. Regarding the appeals, it decided that it would not analyze the arguments presented by the then President because he himself withdrew said appeal. Thus, it confirmed the decision of the judge of first instance regarding the amount established for consequential damages and loss of earnings. 102 The appeal filed by the alleged victims was rejected, so the judgment of first instance was confirmed in all its parts. 103 Among its considerations, the Provincial Court concluded that the reading of the articles presented as evidence in the process “effectively influences the “deep conviction” of the undersigned judges in the sense that there is malice on the part of the defendants, establishing that the purpose or intention [sic] of the defendants, has effectively resulted in attacking the honor and reputation of the economist Rafael Vicente Correa Delgado”. 104 69. Regarding the considerations relating to the right to honor and good name, the Provincial Court stated that “[t]he abuse of a right, on many occasions, brings with it unimaginable consequences, for peaceful coexistence in a civilized society , and can even generate mass hysteria the result of which can be disastrous”. 105 In this sense, it indicated that “[t]he right to freedom of expression is safe; the subsequent liability is the one that applies in case of violation of the right to honor and the judges are under an unrestricted obligation to guarantee those violated rights whose holder or offended party makes a claim, in addition to effective judicial protection”. 106 96 Cf. Ruling of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of the District of Guayas of August 16, 2011 (evidence file, folio 5352). 97 Cf. Ruling of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of the District of Guayas of August 22, 2011 (evidence file, folio 5353 to 5356). 98 Cf. Record of annulment and appeal hearing (evidence file, folio 5574). 99 Cf. Record of annulment and appeal hearing (evidence file, folio 5413 to 5574). 100 Cf. Record of continuation and conclusion of annulment and appeal hearing (evidence file, folio 5578). 101 Cf. Judgment of September 22, 2011, Provisional Court of Justice of Guayas (evidence file, folio 5248). 102 Cf. Judgment of September 22, 2011, Provisional Court of Justice of Guayas (evidence file, folio 5254). 103 Cf. Judgment of September 22, 2011, Provisional Court of Justice of Guayas (evidence file, folio 5254). 104 Cf. Judgment of September 22, 2011, Provisional Court of Justice of Guayas (evidence file, folio 5253). 105 Cf. Judgment of September 22, 2011, Provisional Court of Justice of Guayas (evidence file, folio 5254). 106 Cf. Judgment of September 22, 2011, Provisional Court of Justice of Guayas (evidence file, folio 5254). 26