or about the existence of future proceedings to follow, due to the content it published. 183 In this sense, César Enrique Pérez Barriga declared, during the public hearing, that for the duration of the trial, the morale of the company's workers was affected, generating insecurity over their future. 184. Gustavo Alberto Cortez Galecio, who worked as Managing Editor at the time of the events, stated that the criminal proceedings "instilled selfcensorship in the team," since there was a "panic" of being brought before the courts by the then President. He also stated that he suffered harassment for being an employee of the newspaper due to the atmosphere of hostility that existed against the media outlet. 185 124. Thus, the Court considers that the sanction imposed on the directors of El Universo affected their ability to exercise their freedom of expression, also affecting the staff of the newspaper. In this regard, the statements of the alleged victims and witnesses show that the lawsuit and the conviction modified the content of the articles published by the newspaper, the editorial work, the work environment, generating fear in the face of the potential loss of jobs from the possible bankruptcy of the newspaper due to the amount of the imposed sanction. 186 In this sense, the Court also considers that the imposition of the sentence on the publisher El Universo, in which the article "NO to lies" was disseminated, on Mr. Palacio Urrutia and his directors, generated a chilling effect that inhibited the circulation of ideas, opinions and information by third parties, constituting an infringement of the right to freedom of expression. 125. The Court deems it appropriate to reiterate that the fear of a disproportionate civil sanction can clearly be as intimidating and inhibiting for the exercise of freedom of expression as a criminal sanction, as it has the potential to compromise the applicant’s personal and family life or, as in this case, to publish information about a public official, with the obvious and discreditable result of self-censorship, both for the person affected and for other potential critics of a public official’s actions. 187 In this regard, the expert Toby Mendel pointed out that the function of defamation remedies should be to repair the damage caused to the reputation of an applicant and not to punish the defendant, in accordance with the appeal of the special international mandates on freedom expression. 188 Cf. Statements by Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti (Merits file, folio 1000), Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga (Merits file, folio 1011), Leonardo Terán Parral (Merits file, folio 1023), and Gustavo Alberto Cortez Galecio (Merits file, folios 1029 and 1031). 183 184 Cf. Statement by César Enrique Pérez Barriga during the public hearing. Cf. Statement by Gustavo Alberto Cortez Galecio given before notary publico n May 26, 2021 (Evidence file, folios 1029 to 1031). 185 Cf. Statement by César Enrique Pérez Barriga (Merits file, folio 1011), and Statement by Gustavo Alberto Cortez Galecio (Merits file, folio 1030). The witness Gustavo Alberto Cortez Galecio stated that “[t]his news dropped like a bomb in the newsroom […] the newsroom was fully aware that the amount […] was much higher than the value of the company, which would be equivalent to the media being under his control, and continuing to be in his debt, and that the workers would be fired or be under his orders.” 186 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panamá, supra, par. 129, and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238, par. 74. 187 Cf. Written version of expert witness Toby Mendel of June 3, 2021 (Merits file, folio 1494). Similarly, The European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment in the Case of Filipovic v. Serbia, maintained that the amount of compensation awarded must ‘bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the moral injury suffered’ by the applicant in question. Cf. ECHR. Case of Filipovic v. Serbia, Judgment No. 27935/05 February 20, 2008, par. 56, and Case of Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom, Judgment No. 68416/01 May 15, 2005, par. 96. 188 42