proceedings in this criminal trial constitute violations of the freedom of expression, and that both the laws that criminalize such conduct, and the possibility of preventive detention during the trial or a conviction, constitute a burden disproportionate to the legitimate exercise of the freedom of expression. They also consider that Mr. Tristán Donoso has been harassed, as he has been denied authorization to travel abroad even though it is not possible to issue such a prohibition for the offense of which he is accused. 2 The petitioners also indicate that on October 25, 2001 the Attorney General filed a claim for compensation for damages and losses for the sum of 1,100,000 balboas for damages and material losses arising from the slander and libel. 10. The petitioners allege that Mr. Tristán Donoso has exhausted two constitutional challenges of the laws that regulate these offenses. The second of these challenges, which refers to the instant case, was filed on April 28, 2000 against the desacato laws provided for in Articles 172, 173, 173-A, 174, and 175 of the Criminal Code, on grounds of unconstitutionality. This challenge was dismissed by the Supreme Court, on May 24, 2000 as the purpose of the action had already been decided by the Court in a judgment of October 28, 1998 which established that those provisions of the Criminal Code are not unconstitutional. The petitioners allege that this remedy represented the sole opportunity to fight the provisions of a “desacato law,” which is incompatible with the Convention, and that, for this reason, Panama has not adopted all the measures needed to bring its legislation and practices into line with the Convention. 11. Without prejudice to the argument set forth above, with respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies for violations of the right to freedom of expression, the petitioners also allege that the exception provided for at Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention applies, for the following reasons: (a) There is no effective remedy in the legislation to protect the right to freedom of expression when the opinions refer to public officials, and it is not possible to challenge the constitutionality of the slander and libel laws, since the Supreme Court itself has declared them to be constitutional; (b) The slander and libel provisions in the Criminal Code are contrary to the Convention, as they criminalize the exercise of the freedom of expression as they entail the threat of prison or fines for those who insult or offend a public official, and, even though by being subsequent to the expression they do not impede the petitioner from expressing himself, “they are equivalent, nonetheless, to censorship, which may possibly deter him from making criticisms of that sort in the future.” The fear of criminal sanctions necessarily discourages citizens from expressing their opinions on problems of public interest; (c) There is a reiterated practice of public officials abusing such trials. They add that Mr. Tristán Donoso has been suffering the anguish of the continuation of this trial, its possible outcomes, and the possibility of facing a prison sentence, for over three years. B. The State a. With respect to the interference, taping, and publication of a telephone conversation between Mr. Tristán Donoso with his client and the subsequent criminal investigation against the Attorney General 12. The State requests the IACHR to declare the petition related to the wiretapping, taping, and publication of a telephone conversation between Mr. Tristán Donoso and his client inadmissible, for lack of any objective foundation, as it is based merely on personal considerations made in connection with the complaint he lodged, which did not have the outcome he had hoped for.3 The State alleges that these facts were the subject of an administrative investigation by the Procuraduría General de la Administración, and that the proceeding regarding acts which had been sought to be attributed to the Attorney General concluded with a dismissal with prejudice handed down December 3, 1999 by the Supreme Court. This judgment was reported by edict on January 4, 2000 which noted “that as of 3:00 p.m. on the next day, January 5, no appeal whatsoever had been taken, accordingly the judgment can be considered legally to be a firm judicial decision.” 2 Article 2127, agreeing with Article 2128 of the Judicial Code indicate that personal precautionary measures imposing a prohibition on travel abroad without judicial authorization, and the duty to appear before a public authority periodically, shall also be applicable when two circumstances are both present: the accused takes flight or there is a danger he or she will try to do so, and the offense carries a minimum sentence of two years of imprisonment (underscored by petitioners). 3 Communication from the State received at the IACHR October 2, 2001 which referred to a report by the Office of the Attorney General and the Supreme Court of Justice. 3