IV. CIVIL LIABILITY 27. In paragraphs 102 and 103 of the judgment, the Court determined that “the State must adopt the necessary measures to annul the attribution of civil liability to Freddy Parrales Chaves and Ronald Moya Chacón imposed by judgment No. 02-2007 handed down by the Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, on January 10, 2007, and confirmed in cassation by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on December 20, 2007; this includes any administrative or judicial record, or the possibility that it could be recognized as a judicial precedent.” The Court did not find it appropriate “to order the repayment of the sums disbursed due to the civil conviction to pay damages and procedural costs because the victims in this case did not have to make this payment and there is no record in the body of evidence – and it has not been argued – that La Nación has filed or could eventually file an action against the victims to reclaim the amounts disbursed by the newspaper.” 28. In this section, I will focus on stressing the importance of the protection of journalists and their freedom of expression in relation to the importance of the democratic system in the hypothesis of subsequent civil liability. Thus, it is also important to protect journalists from unjustified complaints that may have a chilling effect due to the possibility of receiving a conviction. Consequently, it must be emphasized that the proportionality test is a useful tool for preventing that effect because it involves an analysis of the circumstances of the journalist concerned to ensure that the sanction will be proportionate to the reality of that individual. 29. In this regard, paragraph 78 of the judgment clearly establishes that, regarding proportionality, “it should also be underlined that, if it is considered appropriate to award reparation to the person whose honor has been harmed, the purpose of this should not be to punish the originator of the information, but rather to provide redress to the person concerned.” 30. The ECHR has ruled similarly, when stating that the nature and severity of the sanctions imposed are factors that should be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of an interference with freedom of expression. In particular it has referred to the requirement of “utmost caution where the measures taken or sanctions imposed by the national authorities are such as to dissuade the press from taking part in the discussion of matters of legitimate public concern.” 19 31. The abusive and disproportionate use of civil liability may result in the silencing of journalists and, eventually, also of the media in which they intervene. Its disproportionate nature in relation to the possibility of responding to such sanctions by those who receive them may have the same or an even more chilling effect than the criminal sanction. 32. In addition, it has already been pointed out that a succession of unjustified complaints is, today, one of the greatest risks to freedom of expression and makes it necessary to establish anti-SLAPP measures. As mentioned previously in my concurring opinion in the case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador: 20 “[t]he term “SLAPP” is an acronym for the expression “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” This term refers to legal actions, whether of a criminal or civil nature, that are filed not to vindicate a just legal claim by a person whose honor or good name has been affected, but to punish or harass the defendant for participating 19 Cf. ECHR, Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, no. 33348/96, judgment of December 17, 2004, para. 111. See also, Jersild v. Denmark, no. 15890/89, judgment of September 23, 1994, Series A no. 298, para. 35, Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, and Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98. 20 Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446.