undermines the trust that people have in him, as well as a loss of income, which is related to the future projection that a statesperson has in his activities, both public as well as private, [...]. 32. Regarding the limitations on the right to freedom of expression, the considerations of the Judgment states: [...] Freedom of expression has a limit. For those people who are not clear about it, making comments, opinions, etc., that go beyond this limit is called insult in Ecuadorian law and it is a crime that, as such, is judged by criminal law. [...] 2.2 Second instance and appeals 33. On July 22, then-President Rafael Correa filed an appeal, through which he appealed the amount of the complementary conviction and demanded that the “amount be increased”42. However, at the second instance "oral, public and contradictory" hearing, "he withdrew his appeal”43. On July 22 and 26, 2011, the company El Universo, Carlos Pérez Barriga, César Pérez Barriga, and Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lappenti filed an appeal against the first instance judgment. Likewise, Emilio Palacio filed a remedy for annulment and appeal on July 2644. 34. On August 9, 2011, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Guayas undertook the process. On August 16, said court set the appeal hearing for August 25, also stating that "video recordings of the proceeding will not be made"; On August 22, the hearing was postponed for August 30, on the grounds that Rafael Correa would not be present due to a trip, and decided to deny the request for separate hearings on nullity and appeal; on August 26, the court pointed out that due to the integration of Judge Henry Morán on that day, and the requirement of "appropriate time to study the process," the hearing would be postponed until September 13, 2011; On September 5, the appeal hearing was postponed for October 4, 2011, due to the integration of Judge Helen Mantilla Benítez de Infante set for September 12, "which would make it impossible for her to hear the process and the court to discuss the arguments”45. 35. On September 9 and then 14, of 2011, the defendants asked the court to change the date of the hearing scheduled for October 4, due to a trip to be made by Nicolás Pérez Lapentti for health reasons on September 12, which was not granted. The complainant, for his part, opposed this request through a document submitted on September 13, for the hearing to be called "as soon as possible”46. 36. On September 14, 2011, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Guayas resolved, among others, not to grant the request for the suspension of the case and its referral to the Constitutional Court requested by the attorney Mónica Vargas Cerdán; that the nullity and appeal proceedings be resolved at the same hearing; that the "Public and Contradictory Oral Hearing" will be held on September 16, 2011, revoking "in its entirety" the orders of September 5 and 12, 2011. Likewise, the ruling stated that the "deadline had long elapsed since the first twenty days since the process was assigned to the substation chamber." On the other hand, the ruling resolved to grant "certified copies" required by the attorney Jorge Roditti "as long as the process is not under study and review by the judges that make up this chamber”47. 37. On September 15, 2011, the attorneys for the alleged victims were notified of the order of September 14 and challenged the court's decision in writing and argued that the ruling that set the hearing was not "enforceable", for which it could not remain "firm". They also stated that the revocation of the September 12 ruling was made "ex officio". Emilio Palacio Urrutia, on the other hand, requested the "partial revocation" of the ruling of September 14 and requested that the provisions of the order of September 5, 2011 be maintained, that is, to keep the October 4 hearing. In addition, by writing of the attorneys Mónica Vargas Cerdán and Jorge Roditi questioned that Judge Monfilio Florentino Serrano "did not appear on the list of eligible to undertake the Annex 14. Correa and defendants appeal documents. Annexes No. 35 and 39 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 42 43 Annex 15. Second instance judgment. Annex No. 59 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011, page 7. Annex 16. Correa and defendants appeal documents. Annexes No. 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 44 Annex 17. Documents second instance, hearing determination. Annexes No. 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 45 Annex 18. Request for change of hearing defendants and opposition of Correa. Annexes No. 50 and 51 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 46 47 Annex 19. Order September 14, 2011. Annex No. 53 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 9