61 o) if Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s honor was impugned in any way, it would only have been for the period during which his name was listed in the Judiciary’s Record of Convicted Felons; p) Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s purported hesitation about reporting news involving the activities of public officials is a “myth,” as shown by the “countless” op-ed pieces and news articles supplied; q) under the doctrine of actual malice, utterances, words or deeds that offend honor can be made punishable offenses. Indeed, other kinds of penalties for such conduct are compatible with a democratic society, provided their purpose is to protect honor and reputation; r) the “assertion that a civil award ordered in the course of a criminal case is subordinate to the judgment in the criminal case, and follows virtually automatically from the decision in the principal (criminal) case, as a consequence of it and in addition thereto” is incorrect. The party filing the criminal complaint must prove both the existence of the crime and the extent and existence of the harm caused. The civil action preserves its own autonomy within the criminal case; the parties are responsible for moving the proceedings forward, as there is no ex officio procedural impetus. The civil action is a private action that can be waived; it is negotiable, compensable and can be abandoned; s) surely the Court would never consider that the Convention’s protection also extends to a legal person, represented by its chief legal counsel. “La Nación” has not the slightest right to claim protection not just belatedly but also improperly.” Legal persons do not enjoy the same rights that human persons enjoy. Persons associated with “La Nación” are the only ones who could demand protection, yet not one of them “acted promptly to seek protection of his rights”; t) Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser cannot be counted among the victims of the violations alleged to be the result of the case prosecuted against Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, as Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser was not a party to that process; u) the proposal put forward by the representatives and the Commission at the public hearing, which was to eliminate penalties for crimes against honor in the case of public officials or private persons involved in public affairs, clashes with one of the essential pillars of the rule of law, which is the prohibition of discrimination. With that kind of scheme to eliminate such penalties, the honor of public officials would be less protected by virtue of the fact that they have exercised their own political rights. Article 24 of the Convention prohibits arbitrary discrimination by proclaiming that all persons are equal before the law; and v) public debate can be “heated or hurtful,” but in the end it is still debate; in other words, it is a coming together of opinions, ideas or perceptions. However, the use of editorial space or articles in newspapers when no opportunity for reply or rebuttal is given, ought not to be confused with public debate. Nor should the public official under attack have to remain impervious to accusations or suspicions, no matter how unfounded they may be.