109. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s recommendations and asked the Court to require the State to eliminate from its laws all those norms that permit the penalization of critical or disrespectful expressions against public officials in the exercise of their functions. Also, regarding the provisions of article 1045 of the Costa Rican Civil Code, they asked that Costa Rica be ordered to stipulate in its legal system, “either by law or by the case law of its courts, the need to conduct the test of malice or actual malice as a requirement for imposing civil liability on those who express their opinions on matters of public interest or in relation to public officials, in those cases where it has been proved and justified that it may be appropriate.” In addition, they asked the Court to require the State to adapt the offenses of defamation and libel by the press established in articles 145 of the Criminal Code and 7 of the Printing Act to inter-American standards. 110. The State emphasized that, at no time, had the victims in this case been criminally convicted and, therefore, “the consequences of the offenses regarding which they now seek condemnation by the Court were never applied to them.” It also reiterated that the discrepancy now raised concerning the criminal offenses and article 1045 of the Civil Code in relation to their condition as journalists had not been broached in the domestic jurisdiction by means of the corresponding action of unconstitutionality 111. The Court notes, first, that Messrs. Moya Chacón and Parrales Chaves, among others, were prosecuted for the offense of libel established in article 7 of the Printing Act in relation to Article 145 of the Criminal Code, as well as for the offense of defamation established in article 146 of the said Criminal Code, although, finally, they were acquitted in the criminal sphere and received a civil conviction in application of article 1045 of the Civil Code. 132 The Court considered that the civil conviction was contrary to Article 13 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, because it was neither necessary nor proportionate to the legitimate purpose sought; nevertheless, it did not question the conventionality of article 1045 on which the conviction was based. Consequently, the Court does not find it necessary to require the adaptation of the laws on subsequent liability in relation to freedom of expression. That said, the Court recalls that the interpretation of article 1045 of the Civil Code must be coherent with the American Convention’s principles on freedom of expression contained in its Article 13 and developed by the Court’s case law and, in particular, by this judgment. d.2 Training programs 112. The Commission recommended providing training programs to the Costa Rican Judiciary to disseminate the standards and criteria established in its Merits Report. 113. Similarly, the representatives asked that training be provided to judges and other agents of justice on the international standards with regard to the right to freedom of expression in matters of public interest. 114. The State contested this measure of reparation indicating that, at no time, had the victims in this case been criminally convicted and, therefore, “the consequences of the offenses regarding which they now seek condemnation by the Court were never applied to them.” This article stipulates that “[a]nyone who, by malice, omission, negligence or imprudence, causes another person harm shall be obliged to redress this, and also pay damages.” 132 33