Now, (regarding) the definitive dismissal (of the case), many people interpret it as: “there was no trial,” that is to say, “it does not have any consequences for the convicted person because this procedural benefit was applied. The problem is that there was a conviction. And, what is my problem as a lawyer? That anyone who wants to check the records on the Judiciary’s website, can simply type my name and my RUT (number), and the conviction appears. Someone put my name all over Google, “Baraona sentenced to 300 days,” “new lawsuit against Carlos Baraona,” “now Baraona will go to jail” (...) In Chile, you can see any record, the police have special records, the prosecutors have special records, they enter my name and the conviction appears. I stand up in front of a court to plead and the judges have their records and they know that I was convicted. Look, I’m going to tell you something, something personal, I don’t want to say too much. In 2008, the clinic of the … invited me to Washington, to the United States, because this case was heard, in 2008 there was a hearing for this case in Washington. I had obtained funds to pay for my air tickets, and when I was faced with the visa form to enter the United States, there is a section that says: “have you been convicted, yes or no.” Of course, I wanted to say that there is a mechanism in Chile, the 398, but I don’t have that option, I have to say I was convicted or I was not convicted. If I lie to the United States, I prefer not to know what the consequences would be … so I tore up the paper, I did not request the visa and I did not go to the United States. I have never been to the United States. In other words, as long as there is no judgment stating that the 2004 trial was unfair, that the Chilean government made a mistake, I continue to be a convicted person. I have even endured mockery, as a convicted man, “officer, how can you believe him if he has been convicted?” That is the reality. What did I do as a defense mechanism? I focused on the private sector, my clients are from the private sector, a rental lawsuit between Mr. A and Mr. B. That is what I do. I stopped handling these public trials, because I’m always exposed to the fact that I was convicted (...) All these years, of course, I’ve had to bear the stigma of having lied, of damaging the honor of a senator. For me… I don’t know if the word is rage, but I feel angry, powerless. 62. It is clear that even if the sentence is suspended, the cost is too high. And not only for the accused, but also for a democratic society as a whole, owing to the impoverishment of the debate on issues of public interest and the weakening of control over public administration. 63. Suspended sentences are only possible in the absence of a criminal record and if the individual does not reoffend. Moreover, suspension is an option available to the court and is not a mandatory procedure if certain requirements are met. This means that, although it is a possibility, there is no guarantee that persons convicted of honor crimes will never be imprisoned.