69. In any case, from a comparative perspective, I believe it relevant to establish that, in the past, the Brazilian legal system contained similar provisions to those examined here. 51 However, since 2009, the said law is no longer in force in that country owing to the important judgment No. 130 of the Federal Supreme Court on the action on non-compliance with a fundamental right. 52 On that occasion, the Brazilian court understood that the regularization of journalism and the sanctions established for abuses in this area imposed unacceptable limitations on press freedom, a significant legal position aimed not only at promoting the full visibility of the exercise of power, but also at fostering public opinion in a plural environment and as an alternative to the official truth and, therefore, it concluded that the whole law was unconstitutional. 53 70. I believe that an additional clarification is required on this point, in keeping with this Court’s understanding in the case of Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador. When examining the aggravated criminal liability of journalists in light of the American Convention, I am not referring solely and exclusively to the potential anti-conventional nature of the explicit wording of article 7 of the Costa Rican the Printing Act. In the case of the control of conventionality, it is necessary to consider any interpretation made by the courts that results in the same type of effects or that adopts the same rationale as the said article. See the Court’s considerations when referring to measures of reparation on that occasion: 179. However, for this Court, not only the suppression or issue of norms of domestic law guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention, pursuant to the obligation contained in Article 2 of that instrument. The development of State practices conducive to the effective observance of the rights and freedoms enshrined therein is also required. Consequently, the existence of a law does not in itself guarantee that its application will be appropriate. The application of the norms or their interpretation, as jurisdictional practices and a manifestation of state public order, must conform to the purpose sought by Article 2 of the Convention. [...] 54 71. It is also worth mentioning that the declaration of unconstitutionality or incompatibility with the Convention of a specific aggravated criminal norm would not, of itself, exclude the possibility of the Judiciary deciding to impose a harsher sanction owing to certain characteristics of the agent or his conduct based on the norm, evidently respecting the principle of legality. 72. For example, in the instant case, even if article 7 of the Costa Rican Printing Act were to be amended, derogated, or interpreted as not being in force by the domestic courts, this would not, per se, be equal to eliminating the possibility of a specifically substantiated aggravated sanction in the case of special virulence of the malice and the negative impact on reputation derived from the circulation of information that was evidently false or the erroneousness of which could have been verified and rejected by simple procedures to consult ordinary journalistic sources (in other words, based on the circumstances of reckless disregard of the truth, or actual malice). The Brazilian Press Act stipulated that journalists and media outlets could be detained or fined if they published something that offended “the moral and good customs,” and even established harsher sanctions if the information published defamed or libeled a public authority. 51 52 Federal Supreme Court of Brazil, ADPF 130, judgment of April 30, 2009. The judgment was welcomed by the press and by Brazilian society as a symbol of the guarantees of freedom of expression and information embodied in the 1988 Constitution – enacted around 20 years before the judgment. It is worth underlining that the Federal Supreme Court decided not to admit the offenses established in the Press Act, precisely because the Brazilian Criminal Code already defined the same offenses without conditioning their perpetration exclusively to members of the press, and establishing less severe sanctions for them. 53 54 IACtHR. Case of Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 24, 2021, §179