possibility that said gifts could have been obtained with public funds; iv) “asylum or refuge” of the mother and the child in Paraguay, and v) Mrs. Meza, who was a public official and there was an eminent interest to report on her relationship with the former President, as well as on the increase in her capital due to the gifts she received from Mr. Menem. 24. In relation to the photographs included in the notes, the representatives affirmed that they were obtained with the consent of the former President, given that for the photographs to be taken, the former President must have allowed the journalists entry into the Presidential residence when the boy was there, in places open to the press, where the President appeared without any qualms and approving of the presence of visual media. On the other hand, they noted that, pursuant to that affirmed by Mr. D’Amico in the public hearing, the images were delivered to the magazine by the press service of the Office of the President of the Nation. It was not only the government of former President Menem who invited the mother and child to relevant public events and placed them in preferential seating, but it also took photographs and handed over the images in an official manner to the media. 25. Lastly, the representatives considered that the sanction in this case was disproportionate given that the amount established by the Supreme Court was three hundred times higher than the minimum Argentine salary and fifty times higher than the average salary of a journalist, thus far from being a reasonable amount. The originally proposed amount, plus the interests and expenses of the proceeding, ended up being four times greater than the initial compensation amount, thereby being a disproportionate and excessive punishment that inevitably inhibited public debate. Based on the aforementioned, they concluded that the State violated the right to freedom of expression of Mr. Fontevecchia and Mr. D’Amico. 26. The State asserted that the right to information and freedom of speech now has full recognition in its legal code, achieved through the reform of the Constitution in 1994, which gave constitutional status to a number of international instruments on Human Rights, one of which is the American Convention on Human Rights. It noted that "any action against such a right cannot be attributed to the [State], nor can it be said that some media outlets have been censored by its actions, or that [any] journalist and social communicator has been subject to censorship or persecution for published statements." From the ruling that stemmed from the request of Mr. Fontevecchia and Mr. D'Amico, Argentina has "carried out legislative, judicial, and institutional reforms recognizing the existence of a situation regarding freedom of expression that bore no necessary compatibility with international standards of the American Convention. This policy addressed the issue comprehensively, with the clear purpose of repairing the situation being evinced." 27. Among other reforms, Argentina mentioned the adoption of the Law on Audiovisual Communication Services, which replaced the broadcasting law of the military dictatorship, as part of a process of democratization and media demonopolization initiated by the National Executive Branch. It indicated that "the Argentine legal system [...] would be compatible with international standards on [the] matter", following the reform of the penal code for complying with the ruling issued in the case of Kimel, which decriminalized libel and slander in cases which relate to matters of public interest. In addition, "the actual malice doctrine has been applied by [the] [h]ighest Court in a consistent and uniform manner [...] leaving no doubt about its application in cases of civil damages as a result of statements regarding information that is of public interest.” The Supreme Court is clear in stating the fundamental 10