the news article was composed, in order to conclude “that the news was managed inefficiently, since the article’s headlines, mentioning the involvement of Trejos Rodríguez, misled the readers and seriously tarnished the complainant’s honor.” 21. The State maintained that the judgment against the journalists “follows three clear lines: (i) it punishes the inaccuracy of the information disclosed in the article in question, since the journalists’ work was shown to be insufficient—they were satisfied to request information from the Ministry of Public Safety, which was not the relevant source on the subject being investigated; therefore, the decision stated that they should have availed themselves of another source; (ii) it considers the physical composition of the article to be unprofessional, since the headlines, both the large one and the smaller one, gave readers the false idea that all of the individuals mentioned in the article were under investigation for the offenses reported; and (iii) incidentally, based on inaccurate information, the complainant’s honor was seriously tarnished […].” 22. In the opinion of the State, the alleged victims were found liable civilly—not criminally—and ordered to pay an appropriate sum that does not have a dissuasive, intimidating, or inhibiting effect on the professional practice of journalism. Additionally, the State explained that Article 40 of the Costa Rican Code of Criminal Procedure allows for civil actions to recover damages to be heard within criminal cases, although it acknowledged that such actions are ancillary. In this respect, it maintained that the petitioners’ argument that the trial court had rendered an autonomous decision on the civil liability of the defendants was inaccurate, since the Costa Rican courts entered judgment against the journalists as the result of a civil action filed against them by a public servant. 23. The State underscored that the decisions of the domestic courts adhered to the parameters of necessity, relevance, proportionality, and rationality of subsequent liability, in addition to being fair, and incorporated the applicable standards developed by the inter-American human rights bodies; therefore, the judicial authorities exercised the proper conventionality control. 24. In this regard, the State acknowledged that the alleged victims exhausted the available domestic remedies. Nevertheless, it stated that the allegations made by the petitioners before the InterAmerican System were not made at the domestic level, and therefore the national courts did not have the opportunity to rule on them. It emphasized that all of the arguments asserted at trial focused on convincing the Court that the information reported was true. According to the State, “the petitioners changed their strategy” before the Inter-American Commission, “flagrantly disregarding the procedural fairness and good faith that must prevail in every judicial proceeding and with special care in making use of the international human rights protection bodies.” 25. The State asked that this petition be declared inadmissible on the grounds that the facts described do not constitute a violation of the human rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights, and furthermore, because the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies has not been met in the established terms. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 26. According to 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, the petitioners are entitled to file petitions with the Commission in regard to alleged violations of the rights established in the American Convention. The alleged victims named in the petition are two individuals with respect to whom the State has undertaken to respect and guarantee the rights recognized by the American Convention. As for the State, the Commission notes that Costa Rica has been a State Party to the Convention since August 4, 1970, on which date it deposited its ratification instrument. Therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. 27. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition complains of a violation of human rights protected by the American Convention. In addition, it has ratione temporis insofar as