of the elements of article 7 of the Costa Rican Printing Act to which the attention of the Court’s judges was drawn and that led them to express their legitimate and justified fear that this type of provision could be used as an effective vehicle for inducing the silence of journalists and compromising the collective and informative dimension of press freedom. III. Article 7 of the Printing Act in relation to the Convention and the case law of the Inter-American Court 44. Under the Costa Rican legal system, the Criminal Code contains specific provisions that define the offenses of libel and defamation in articles 145 and 146, respectively; nevertheless, it should be noted that the two criminal offenses are only subject to fines. However, the Costa Rican Printing Act also defines conducts classified as libel and defamation as offenses in its article 7, establishing a harsher sanction, and expressly establishing imprisonment applicable exclusively to media professionals. See below: Anyone responsible for defamation or libel committed through the press shall be punished with from one to one hundred and twenty days’ detention. This sanction shall apply jointly to the authors of the publication and to the editors responsible for the newspaper, pamphlet or book in which it may have appeared. If the name of the responsible editors does not appear in the newspaper, pamphlet or book, the directors of the publishing company shall be considered as such for the effects of this article, and if there are no such directors, their responsibility shall revert to the owner of the publishing company. But, if this be leased or held by another person in any other capacity, the lessee or possessor of the publishing company shall assume the responsibility that falls to the owner, provided that the Governor of the province has been advised of this tenure. If the defamatory or libelous publication has not been made in a newspaper, pamphlet or book, the authors and the director or owner or lessee or possessor of the publishing company shall be held jointly responsible pursuant to the rule established in their regard in the preceding paragraph. 45. For the analysis of the said article 7, it can be divided into three sub-categories of liability: the first refers to conducts specifically carried out through the press that are not sanctioned with a fine, but with one to one hundred and twenty days’ imprisonment. The second refers to the criminal liability of the authors and managing editors of the publication. The third establishes the liability of the directors, owners and/or lessees of the medium if the name of the editors does not appear in the publication. 46. In the following paragraphs, I will first examine the first sub-category (“a”) and then the second and third (“b”), to compare them with the provisions of the Convention and the case law of the Court. Before this, it will be necessary to make a brief digression on the actual status of the Costa Rican statute. 47. The Printing Act was promulgated more than a century ago, in 1904. During the public hearing of this case on February 14, 2022, I was able to question the State’s representative on the legitimacy of its article 7. It would appear from his reply that, currently, discussions are ongoing as to whether or not this provision is in force – as recognized in paragraph 31 of the judgment – a fact that I considered of special relevance to justify my support for the unanimous judgment delivered by the Court. 48. In this regard, according to the 2009 written expert opinion of Francisco J. Dall'Anese in its judgment No. 1798/2009, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica recognized the tacit annulment of the said article 7, although the provision continues to