execution of judgment order, since on April 3, the Costa Rican Court issued a decision ordering him to comply with the judgment and threatening him with a prison sentence. 24. The petitioners made reference to the precautionary measures requested by the IACHR in favor of Mr. Herrera and Mr. Rohrmoser, and the provisional measures ordered by the InterAmerican Court, which allowed Mr. Rohrmoser to excuse himself from execution of the judgment of November 12, 1999. They stated that for those reasons, the rights of Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser protected under the Convention were violated. In addition, they cited the Cantos case heard by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. They contended that the same principle is applicable in the present petition, since even though Mr. Rohrmoser acted on behalf of a legal person, the primary interest at stake was his own interest as a natural person. They alleged that he was acting in representation of “La Nación” newspaper as a vehicle of communication, and not as a commercial concern. 25. Therefore, insofar as admissibility is concerned, the petitioners maintained that the petition was filed within the six month period required under Article 46(1), that the facts alleged represent a violation of the American Convention, and that domestic remedies have been exhausted, since the last judicial decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice and cannot be appealed, since it confirms and finalizes the judgment of the lower court. b. Position of the State 26. The Costa Rican State alleges that the petition is inadmissible, because the alleged violation is the basis or foundation of a legitimate limitation or restriction of the exercise of freedom of expression. Therefore, the facts do not represent a violation of the right to freedom of expression protected under the Convention. The State based its case primarily on Article 47, subsection (c) of the Convention, which stipulates that a petition shall be considered inadmissible whenever “the statements of the petitioner or of the state indicate that the petition or communication is manifestly groundless or obviously out of order.” Hence it argued that the petition was inadmissible because it was manifestly groundless, among other reasons, because the grounds were “… the basis of a legitimate restriction or limitation of the exercise of said right….”1 27. Pursuing this argument, the State of Costa Rica invokes Article 13(2)(a) of the American Convention, which stipulates that legal provisions established by a state to ensure “respect for the rights or reputations of others…” are an exception to the right to freedom of expression. Based on that paragraph, it alleges that the law and the judicial decision applied to the presumed victims are part of the legitimate restrictions to freedom of expression, and on that basis, the petition is manifestly groundless, and therefore inadmissible. 28. The State further alleges that the Commission lacks jurisdiction “ratione personae” to hear the petition. On this point, Costa Rica requested the Commission to declare itself incompetent to consider the petition filed by Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser, in his capacity as president with the authority to act as the legal representative of “La Nación,” because of the fact that the latter does not have active legal capacity or standing [legitimación activa]. 29. The State based its argument on Article 1(2) of the Convention, which stipulates that presumed victims of a violation of the rights established by the Convention must be physical persons, and not legal persons. It also cites the practice of the Inter-American Commission in this regard, making reference to cases in which it decided that the protection of the Convention does not extend to legal persons, but only pertains to natural persons, including the following cases: Banco de Lima (Peru);2 Tabacalera Boquerón, S.A. (Paraguay);3 BendeckCohdinsa (Honduras);4 Bernard-Merens and family (Argentina);5 and, Mevopal, S.A. (Argentina).6 1 Fáundez Ledesma, The Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights, Constitutional and Procedural Aspects, San José, Inter-American Human Rights Institute, second edition, 1999, p.415. 2 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report Nº 10/91, case 10.169, February 22, 1991. 3 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report Nº 47/97, petition, October 16, 1997. 4 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report Nº 106/99, petition, September 27, 1999. 5 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report Nº 103/99, petition, September 27, 1999. 6 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report Nº 39/99, petition, March 11, 1999. 4