13. The petitioners argue that the monetary damages ordered are dissuasive and discourage freedom of expression on “matters related to the public interest” and to “the expression of views and ideas that are critical of the behavior of certain State officials.” They further point out that “if the amount ordered to be paid is not so much compensatory as it is punitive, intended to discourage practices,” then Article 13 of the American Convention is being violated. 14. The petitioners likewise argue that in the instant case, the compensation set by the Court was two to three times the amounts ordered by the same Supreme Court in other cases and that the disproportionately large award calls attention to the fact that in the instant case, damages were not necessary according to the terms of Article 13(2) of the American Convention. 15. The petitioners argue further that the publication of true facts on matters of public interest must not be subject to State imposition of liabilities of this nature. They reason that the crux of the argument in the Supreme Court’s ruling was a supposed conflict between freedom of information and protection of privacy; but, the petitioners argue, the ruling “completely disregarded the facts in this particular case: specifically, that the veracity of the information reported was never challenged and that the presence of actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth was never shown.” They further contend that the “ruling would also be a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.” B. The State 16. Concerning the petitioners’ argument to the effect that the information reported was accurate and a matter of public interest, the State contends that the purpose of the Supreme Court’s ruling was to examine the facts presented in the complaint regarding disclosure of matters pertaining to the private life of the party who was plaintiff in the original action. 17. Specifically, the State contends that the subject matter of the articles does not fall under the umbrella of “public interest”, and that the plaintiff in the original action filed had not given his consent to publicize his alleged paternity. The State reasons that “the private lives of public figures are to be protected under inter-American law; the newsmagazine has been unable to show the public’s overriding need to know the information reported in the articles examined by the Court.” 18. The Argentine State denies that the damages the petitioners were ordered to pay are dissuasive. It contends that the court ruling in question was not intended to impair the free circulation of ideas and was not used as a means of intimidation or censure, nor was civil liability imposed because the opinions or ideas expressed were critical of the conduct of certain State officials. 19. As for the dissuasiveness of the compensation that the petitioners were ordered to pay, the State argues that the Supreme Court stated clearly that payment of damages was ordered “inasmuch as the newsmagazine’s conduct was reckless” by the standards set in Articles 11 and 13 of the American Convention. 4 The State contends that the Court’s intention was not to obstruct the free circulation of ideas. Indeed, the Supreme Court had ruled “[…]that the damages 4 In paragraph 17 of the preamble to its ruling of September 25, 2001, the Supreme Court held that “In the matter of damages, the grievance of the parties filing this appeal has to be considered since it is self-evident that while the damages awarded should be an amount sufficient to discourage unlawful conduct, if carried to an extreme such an award can also ultimately weaken the practice of responsible journalism. The amount should not be a token or trifling sum but neither should it lead to the unwarranted enrichment of the plaintiff– who merely sued on his own behalf. The amount of the award should be proportionate to what the plaintiff [in the original suit] claims to be his protected interest, which in turn determines the extent to which the conduct of the newsmagazine was arbitrary. Therefore, this one aspect of the appeal filed by the parties will be admitted: the amount of the award is ordered reduced to sixty thousand pesos, as of the date of the judgment, which will earn interest in the manner ordered by the lower court”. 3