firm criminal conviction [...]. In any case, this sanction did not disappear, but its execution was suspended" which caused serious damage to the rights of the victims and society as a whole. B. State 7. The State maintained that the process was pursued due to the publication of the article called "No a las mentiras", published on February 6, 2011 in the newspaper "El Universo", in which the author referred to the then President Correa as "dictator" and "accused him of committing crimes against humanity", for which the affected party requested on February 28 "that a preparatory proceedings for the document be carried by the Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Guayas". 8. It indicated that Ecuador has a normative framework compatible with inter-American standards and that "[i]n the domestic sphere a criminal proceeding was carried out for the commission of a crime that was fully established in the domestic legal system and that it is not contrary to the American Convention. Also, the process was respectful of the rights of the parties and concluded to convict those involved; subsequently, this conviction was archived because the affected party pardoned the sentence imposed, as well as cancelled the monetary damage compensation ordered by the judgment, for which reason, the ruling was never executed." "In addition, it has been proven that the petitioners have never stopped expressing themselves freely, since to date [...] they have freely exercised the right enshrined in Article 13 of the Convention." 9. It stated that the alleged victims, during the criminal proceedings instituted against them for the aforementioned criminal offense, were able to exercise their right to defense, and presented remedies and appeals that they had considered "pertinent," which included "several recusals". The State argued that "[t]hese actions were heard by competent judges and courts." In addition, it indicated that they had the right to be heard and that "the judges and courts, when deciding their case, considered all the elements presented and, after conducting the respective analysis, concluded that the criminal offense of serious slanderous insult was perpetrated by the petitioners against the complainant." 10. It alleged that they were tried by "competent judges and tribunals in accordance with legally established procedures", that "they belonged to the [j]udicial [f]unction complying with the requirements provided by law," that the Ecuadorian regulations "guarantee the independence of the [j]udicial [f]unction", and that the judges were impartial subjectively and objectively. It also indicated that the alleged victims "were heard, within a reasonable time" and that "[the right to] the presumption of innocence was not violated." Regarding the evidence requested by the alleged victims that were not admitted, the State said that a large part of them were presented extemporaneously, some "repeated" and "the judge applying the rule of sound criticism, admitted to processing those pertinent to the case". It concluded that "due process was respected" at all times. 11. The State argued that the petitioners had an extraordinary protection action, which constituted an appropriate remedy for the claims; in this sense, it argued that if there was a violation of rights in the decision of the criminal proceeding by which they had been prosecuted, they were entitled to file an extraordinary appeal for protection, but "they decided not to do so, a situation that cannot be attributed to the State " III. FACTUAL ANALYSIS A. Context 12. During the period of 2007-2017 the IACHR and its Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression (hereinafter "the Office of the Special Rapporteur") expressed its concern regarding a series of acts and State measures that deviate from the international standards on freedom of expression. In the same way, concern was expressed on several occasions for a speech made by high authorities that stigmatized journalists and media that maintained a critical editorial line; as a result, several journalists and 2