58 the American Convention. Finally, the Court underscores the pertinence of reviewing the need to enact legislation on the use of information held by government authorities about the private life of a person. f) Adaptation of criminal and civil legislation on defamation 207. The Inter-American Commission requested that the Court order the State to adapt its criminal legal system to conform to Article 13 of the American Convention. 208. The representatives expressed that “the crimes against honor involved [in the instant case] are unnecessary in a democratic society and constitute mechanisms to indirectly curtail freedom of expression.” They pointed out that the Panamanian criminal legislation that describes crimes against honor, even after the amendment that became effective in May 2008, does not conform to international standards on freedom of expression. Among other considerations, they remarked that: a) the great scope of the legal descriptions of crimes may allow prosecutions limiting free expression to be instituted; b) regulations preclude only criminal punishment if the defamation is addressed against certain public officials; but this does not prevent persons from being subject to criminal prosecution; c) retraction, inasmuch as it requires consent by the offended person, is not effective; and; d) the exceptio veritatis is an institution that, by reversing the burden of proof, indirectly restricts freedom of expression. Regarding civil legislation, they affirmed that it has numerous gaps, which have made it possible to enforce such legislation to the detriment of freedom of expression. It does not preclude, as punishable cases, those in which the information is furnished or the criticism is made regarding matters of public interest, and it does not establish either the actual malice standard or a clear scale to determine pecuniary compensations, something which has led to abuse. 209. The Court has found that the criminal punishment imposed on Mr. Tristán Donoso violated Article 13 of the Convention (supra para. 130). On the other hand, the Tribunal notes and views favorably the amendments the State has introduced in its domestic statutory system regarding this issue. Such amendments came into force after the instant case which, among other progressive rules, preclude the possibility of criminally punishing the crime of defamation when those offended are certain public officials (supra paras. 132 to 134). In view of the foregoing, the Court does not deem it necessary to order the State to adopt the requested reparation measure. g) Training of members of the Court system on the protection standards of the right to honor and freedom of expression in matters of public interest 210. The representatives requested this Tribunal to order the Panamanian State to design and implement a training program for operators active in the Court system, intended to prevent violations such as the ones involved in the instant case from occurring again. The training program must emphasize that criminal punishment is a measure of last resort, applicable only to matters falling beyond the scope of public interest and in which the malicious conduct of the person responsible has been proved. 211. In order to make reparations for the violations determined in the instant case, the Court deems it sufficient that the State ensure that this Judgment be widely disseminated through its publication.