87 190. With regard to reparations, expenses and costs, the State petitioned the Court to declare the application filed by the Commission and the written brief of pleadings, motions and evidence filed by the alleged victims’ representatives to be unfounded and inadmissible, and pointed out that: a) the requested nullification of the effects of the judgment, which would render the accessory penalties ineffective, is improper and inadmissible; b) it is equally inadmissible to nullify all the civil damages awarded against the newspaper “La Nación”, which is the only party found liable on some civil and cybernetic issues, while on others it was declared jointly and severally liable with Mr. Herrera Ulloa; c) despite any harm that the listing of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa in the Judiciary’s Record of Convicted Felons may have caused to his personal and “spiritual” condition, he won academic recognitions, studied in Germany and Spain, won national journalism awards, and did not have to file any request with any public institution that, by law, had access to the information contained in the Judiciary’s Record of Convicted Felons because he was outside the country. Therefore, if there was any harm done to Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s honor or prestige, it had to have been confined to the period during which he was listed in the Judiciary’s Record of Convicted Felons, i.e. from March 1 to April 26, 2001; that would be the one, brief period for which any possible moral damage might be claimed; d) the only satisfaction that Mr. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser could receive would be in his personal capacity, because it is as an individual that he can legitimately claim the protection of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights; therefore, the titles or representations he boasts “count for nothing, […] it would be an absurdity to award satisfaction to an individual […] who has not participated through the channels permitted by the inter-American system for the protection [of human rights]”; and e) with regard to the pecuniary claims, Mr. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser cannot be compensated for human rights violations he did not suffer, as for example a violation of freedom of expression; as then Chairman of the Board of Directors of La Nación and its senior legal counsel and representative, it would appear that Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser never wrote a “single line;” if that is the case, one can infer, then, that his right to freedom of expression and thought could hardly have been violated or denied. Considerations of the Court 191. As recounted in the preceding chapters, the Court has found that by the events in this case, the State violated articles 13 and 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa. In its case law, this Court has established that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage creates a new obligation, which is to adequately redress the wrong