14 story. The newspaper had a system whereby the progress on a story was discussed with immediate superiors. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa prepared notes for those immediate superiors; once they were clear about where the notes were leading them, a further review process kicked in, first by the immediate superior, then by the editor, and finally by an attorney. Throughout this process, Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and the newspaper “La Nación” made “exhaustive attempts” to locate Mr. Przedborski. He could not be found, however. When the first story appeared in the newspaper, a person identifying himself as Mr. Felix Przedborski’s attorney appeared. Mr. Herrera Ulloa availed himself of the opportunity to try to get Mr. Przedborski’s side of the story on the matter, but was unable. The witness even communicated with Mr. Ricardo Castro, Mr. Przedborski’s attorney, and sent him a list of questions in writing. Mr. Castro answered by letter, stating his refusal to respond to the articles in question. Unable to speak with Mr. Félix Przedborski directly, Mr. Herrera Ulloa turned to sources at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He spoke with the then Foreign Minister and Deputy Foreign Minister of Costa Rica, whose versions were consistent with the accusations being made against Mr. Przedborski. However, the Foreign Minister and Deputy Foreign Minister stated that thus far, no one had come up with reliable evidence of the charges. He also interviewed Costa Rican diplomats and former diplomats. They all “rigorously” confirmed the existence of the publications and of the charges against Mr. Przedborski. The Ambassador of Costa Rica in Belgium sent the Foreign Office an official report, containing a translation of the articles in the Belgium press. That document made it very clear that Costa Rican diplomatic circles were very troubled by the repeated appearances of Mr. Przedborski’s name in the Belgian press. Although he had never had any contact with Mr. Przedborski, Mr. Herrera Ulloa did include in his stories the favorable comments that former Costa Rican presidents Luis Alberto Monge and Rafael Ángel Calderón had made about the Costa Rican diplomat, and also added “verbatim” the information supplied by Mr. Ricardo Castro, Mr. Przedborski’s, to counter the charges. Mr. Herrera Ulloa also “contextualized” the reports with background information on Mr. Przedborski that was in the public domain, inasmuch as the charges being made in the Belgian press were not isolated. Mr. Herrera Ulloa even toned down the information reported in Europe about Mr. Przedborski. But he never came across any information that would disprove the information reported in the Belgian newspapers; quite the contrary, the information he had in his possession confirmed the truthfulness of those arties. Had he believed that the articles he published were untrue, then he would have issued a retraction. He did not because he was convinced that “the facts he reported were true.” As a consequence of the second series of articles that appeared in “La Nación” on December 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1995, he learned that Mr. Félix Przedborski had filed suit against the smallest of the four Belgian newspapers. In the end, the Belgian journalist, the author of the impugned article in that country, “was forced to issue a retraction” to avoid criminal punishment. The common feature of the four articles being challenged in the Costa Rican courts –three