dignity. Furthermore, it pointed out that the principle of legality was never violated, since the offense for which the alleged victims were prosecuted was defined in the Criminal Code, and that there was no ambiguity or scope in the criminal definition, which has been included in the aforementioned Code since 1938, modified in 1977. Along the same lines, he stated that the complaint presented constituted a legal and legitimate exercise of the judicial apparatus, consequently obtaining a judgment that restored his honor and good name, for which the criminal and civil sanction imposed was justified. 126 VII MERITS 81. The Court recalls that the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the rights to freedom of expression, the principle of legality and nonretroactivity, and judicial guarantees and judicial protection, contained in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(f), 9, 13 and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, César Enrique Pérez Barriga and Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga. In particular, in relation to freedom of expression, the State recognized that the sanctions imposed on the victims did not respond to a social interest imperative that justified them, that they were unnecessary and disproportionate, and that they could have had an intimidating effect. Additionally, it recognized that the articles of the Criminal Code applied in the case implied a breach of the principle of legality that allowed the victims to be sanctioned under the criminal category of serious slanderous insult against authority. 82. Additionally, the Court recalls that the State recognized that, within the framework of the criminal proceedings brought against the victims, actions occurred contrary to the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. In particular, that the public statements made by the then President placed the parties to the process in an unequal position and affected the guarantees of independence and impartiality of the judicial body. Similarly, the State recognized that the courts acted arbitrarily when applying the criminal offense for which the victims were tried, that the principle of jurisdiction and legality was violated when trying the legal entity El Universo, that the principle of jurisdiction was violated due to the participation of several temporary judges, that a situation of defenselessness was generated due to the changes in the dates of the hearings in the appeal phase, and that the victims did not have access to an effective judicial remedy because there was an affectation to the judicial independence in the specific case. 83. Due to the scope of the State's acknowledgment of responsibility, which does not include all the violations alleged in the proceeding (supra par. 30), the Court will analyze the merits of this case in a chapter that will address: a) the violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression, and the presumed violation of the rights to b) personal liberty, c) property, d) movement and residence, and e) to work. VII-I RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION, TO THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY AND NON-RETROACTIVITY, TO PERSONAL FREEDOM, TO PROPERTY, TO WORK, AND OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE, IN RELATION TO THE DUTY 126 Cf. Amicus curiae brief of Rafael Correa Delgado (merits file, folios 2484 to 2672). 30