III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 6. The petitioners alleged that during the month of December 2005, journalist Freddy Parrales, a correspondent for the newspaper “La Nación” in southern Costa Rica, received information that various Police chiefs and officers were under investigation in connection with the smuggling of liquor in the Panamanian border region. They indicated that Mr. Parrales conveyed the aforementioned information to fellow journalist Ronald Moya, his managing editor at “La Nación,” who requested confirmation from Rogelio Ramos Méndez, the then-Minister of Public Safety of Costa Rica. Minister Ramos confirmed the information. 7. The petitioners asserted that, once the information was confirmed, an article entitled “OIJ [Judicial Investigation Department] condemns police chief for failing to stop truck carrying liquor” was published in “La Nación” on December 17, 2005, under the bylines of journalists Moya and Parrales. The article stated that the regional police chief for the southern region, Luis Ortega, had reportedly been subject to investigation for having cleared—for no apparent reason—a truck carrying contraband liquor that had come from Panama. The article also mentioned the existence of “other cases” confirmed by Minister Ramos, adding that “the police chief of San Vito de Coto Brus, whose surname is Cruz, and the police chief of Ciudad Nelly, whose surname is Méndez, are under investigation.” In reference to the aforementioned “Mr. Cruz,” the article stated that “after more than 16 years of service on the Police Force, a case has been brought against Cruz by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Corredores for alleged extortion in the illegal trafficking of liquor.” 8. The petitioners explained that the Press Office of the Ministry of Public Safety (headed by Minister Ramos) later informed Mr. Moya that the extortion investigation was being conducted by the Office of the Assistant Prosecutor of Coto Brus and not Corredores, as had been reported. They stated that in the February 9, 2006 edition of “La Nación” the respective correction was published as “Errata. Error with regard to the Office of the Public Prosecutor.” 9. The petitioners explained that, as a consequence of the publication described in the above paragraphs, Police Chief José Cruz Trejos Rodríguez filed a criminal complaint for defamation [calumnias y difamación] against journalists Moya and Parrales, as well as Minister Ramos, in which he asserted that there was no open investigation against him for “illegal liquor trafficking.” 10. According to the petitioners, the complaint was adjudicated at the first instance by the Trial Court for the Second Circuit [Tribunal de Juicio de Segundo Circuito]. They asserted that it was proven at trial that the complainant, Mr. Cruz, had in fact been the subject of an investigation that resulted in a criminal charge of extortion, later amended to “bribery of a public official.” They also indicated that only during the trial was it reportedly proven that the investigation did not pertain to “illegal liquor trafficking” but rather to “a vehicle and a person that should have been sent to customs and immigration and apparently an improper payment was made and received.” 11. The petitioners stated that on January 10, 2007, the Trial Court ruled that no crime had been committed, since Messrs. Moya and Parrales did not act with criminal intent, and their “sole intention […] [was to] perform their work of informing the public.” Nevertheless, the journalists were held civilly liable for pecuniary damages, since the Court found that it was not enough for them to have verified the information with the Minister of Public Safety, as “after […] consulting the Minister they should have, in the interest of obtaining sound information, verified the sources and the news, for example, by going to the Press Office of the Judiciary to confirm the details of the criminal case.” 12. The petitioners noted in particular that, even though the matter involved a criminal case initiated by a complaint alleging criminal defamation, and even though that complaint was dismissed, the Court decided to rule autonomously on the civil liability of the criminal defendants. 13. The petitioners noted that the judgment was appealed to the Third Division (Criminal Cassation) of the Supreme Court of Justice. In a decision handed down on December 20, 2007, the Third Division