upheld the lower court’s judgment. The petitioners stated that this is the only available instance in Costa Rica to challenge these types of decisions. 14. With regard to the alleged violation of Article 13 of the American Convention, the petitioners maintained that although the information published was partially inaccurate, it was proven at trial that the journalists acted in good faith and that their statements were confirmed by reliable sources, including the State’s highest-ranking police authority. They argued that journalists are required to act with an appropriate degree of diligence and professional integrity, which entails a reasonable degree of diligence and which was demonstrated absolutely in this case. In the petitioners’ opinion, “it is one thing to intentionally lie or disseminate lies through an inexcusable omission in the verification of the truth, and it is quite another to disseminate inaccurate or false information whose authenticity was reasonably confirmed.” 15. In short, the petitioners asserted that, under Article 13 of the American Convention, inaccurate information about matters in the public interest cannot give rise to the individual liability of the journalist— even civil liability—when he or she acted in good faith and confirmed the information with credible sources and exercised, as in this case, a reasonable degree of diligence in so doing. 16. The petitioners thus maintained that the facts show that journalists Moya and Parrales published the information in good faith, only after confirming it with an authoritative government source, namely, the Minister of Public Safety. Therefore, they argued that civil liability based on the mere inaccuracy of a news item, as in the instant case, is inconsistent with the American Convention and constitutes an improper restriction on the right to freedom of expression of journalists Ronald Moya and Freddy Parrales. 17. For all of the above reasons, the petitioners asked the Commission to declare the present petition admissible and to adjudicate it. They asked the Commission to issue a report on the merits declaring the State of Costa Rica responsible for violating the right to freedom of expression of Ronald Moya Chacón and Freddy Parrales Chaves, and ordering the State to: (i) set aside the judgments against the defendants; (ii) adopt the international standard on freedom of expression in subsequent cases; (iii) disseminate the decisions of the bodies of the Inter-American Human Rights System as a measure of non-repetition; (iv) pay compensation for the non-pecuniary damages sustained by the petitioners; and (v) compensate the victims for the costs related to the domestic and inter-American proceedings. B. Position of the State 18. The State explained with regard to the facts alleged in this petition that journalists Ronald Moya Chacón and Freddy Parrales Chávez were criminally prosecuted in case No. 06-000003-0538-PE and later found civilly liable in judgment No. 2-2007, handed down by the Trial Court for the Second Circuit of San José on January 10, 2007. The judgment was affirmed by the Third Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, in decision No. 007-01501 of December 20, 2007. 19. The State indicated that “according to the facts on record in the civil judgment entered against them, [journalists] Moya Chacón and Parrales Chávez published an article in the newspaper La Nación in which they expressly stated, among other things, the following: “After more than 16 years of service on the Police Force, a case has been brought against Cruz [in reference to the victim, José Cruz Trejos Rodríguez] by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Corredores for alleged extortion in the illegal trafficking of liquor.” It added that the falsehood of that information was proven in the civil judgment against the defendants, since “there was no case for illegal liquor trafficking being pursued by any Office of the Public Prosecutor” against the police officer. 20. According to the State, with a modicum of reasonable effort the journalists would have discovered the error and the harm to the public servant’s honor would have been prevented. It maintained that the journalists should not have relied on the information provided by a public servant who supervises 10,000 employees and who is more than 300 kilometers away from where the investigation was being conducted; rather, they should have confirmed the information with other authorities. The State asserted that it is common in Costa Rica for the media to verify their information with the Judiciary—a practice that is shared by La Nación and by the alleged victims. The State maintains that the judgment thoroughly examined the manner in which