55 f) the penalty imposed prevents Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa from freely circulating information on the activities of public officials, as he might face new criminal prosecution and conviction and be treated like a criminal; g) the laws on criminal defamation, libel and slander were used to silence criticism of a public official and to censor the publication of articles related to the alleged illicit activities in which a public official engaged while discharging his office. Therefore, the effect of the penalty imposed is, per se, essentially tantamount to those imposed under the desacato laws and, therefore, in violation of the Convention; h) Mr. Przedborski did not have to prove journalist Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s mens rea. But because of the way in which the Costa Rican courts applied the principle of exceptio veritatis (defense of justification), the burden of proof was reversed and it was the journalist who had to prove the accuracy of what the Belgian newspapers had published in order to plead justification and qualify for the special grounds for acquittal allowed if he proves the truth of what he reported. The judgment that convicted Mr. Herrera Ulloa never established that he had acted with full knowledge that the accusations that the Belgian papers made about Mr. Przedborski were false; nor did it establish that he had acted with reckless disregard for the truth; i) the European Court has held that within a democratic society, journalists need not prove the truth of opinions or value judgments regarding public figures; j) Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Costa Rican society have a right to participate in lively, strong and challenging debates on every aspect having to do with the normal and balanced workings of society. Articles 149 and 152 of the Costa Rican Penal Code, or the convictions being challenged here, punish discourse regarded as critical of a person in the public administration. They punish that discourse in the person of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, the author. In so doing, they defy the very essence and substance of freedom of expression; k) convicting Mauricio Herrera Ulloa of the crime of publishing offenses constituting defamation and punishing him for having published articles on a matter of public interest, is a restriction on his freedom of expression that is incompatible with the needs of a democratic society and serves no pressing social need; l) the State violated Article 1(1) of the Convention, in relation to articles 13 and 8 thereof, to the detriment of Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser; and m) Article 2 of the Convention not only requires States parties to adopt new provisions of domestic law, but also to do away with any law or practice that is incompatible with the obligations they undertake as States parties to the Convention.