effect of declaring the responsibility of Mr. Fontevecchia and Mr. D'Amico for producing, while in the exercise of their professions and due to conduct in violation of a fundamental right, in this case, something to the detriment of he who served as President of the Nation, with the consequent publication of the outcome of the proceeding and the inherent legal and social criticism that comes with it, including the order of publication of an extract of the conviction from the civil sentence. Moreover, the alleged victims had to deal with all the formalities and the consequences of the enforcement of the compensation owed; Mr. D'Amico had to pay the entire compensation plus interest to Mr. Menem, and he also had to endure the repossession of a large percentage of his monthly salary for one year and eight months, equivalent to about forty-six thousand U.S. dollars. The Commission considered that the civil sentence imposed in this case was a violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression recognized by Article 13 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect and guarantee rights provided for in Article 1(1) thereof to the detriment of the alleged victims. 21. The representatives, in general, agreed with the Inter-American Commission regarding, among other things, the content and scope of Articles 11 and 13 of the American Convention, the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, in the permissible restrictions of the latter right, the distinct threshold involved in the protection of the private life of public officials, as well as the publics interest regarding the information published by the magazine Noticias. They recalled that the former President was "a political figure with high exposure and [even] existent public controversy with respect to his family life" and that when the facts of the case took place, Argentina "was undergoing a series of persecution of journalists and social communicators. During those years, it was not uncommon for national and provincial officials to file lawsuits against journalists, with the evident purpose of moderating criticism or conditioning the editorial freedom of the journalist and the media.” Many of these cases came to the Inter-American System. During these years, physical attacks against journalists took place, where one of the most serious cases involved the killing of a news photojournalist of Noticias, José Luis Cabezas in 1997. 22. The representatives also noted that, although traditionally the inhibitory effect of further liability is usually related to the imposition of criminal sanctions for the restriction of a fundamental right such as freedom of an individual, the application of civil sanctions, fines, compensation or reimbursements also can generate severe restrictions on freedom of expression. The possibility of facing further liability of a pecuniary nature has serious consequences: a) the journalists, to whom no media offers them assurances regarding payment for their work, b) the media, who may also be a victim of the inhibitory effect faced with the danger of bankruptcy, and c) the individual investigators who are not part of a group of professionals or do not have a guild that may support their actions. 23. Regarding the restriction imposed by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, the representatives alleged: a) regarding the legality, that the restriction is not based in the law; although the Argentine Civil Code is law in the formal sense, it is not in the material sense because "a law cannot be vague" or "cannot allow discretion in the interpretation of the merits [...] as well as [in] [...] reparations," and b) regarding the need for the restriction, that the information published was of public interest, as it related to: i) the existence of a child not recognized by the former President, which is associated with the compliance of a moral and legal obligation to recognize the child; ii) the existence of a death threat against the child of a president; iii) gifts of a high economic value, which in principle are not compatible with Mr. Menem’s salary, and the 9