false news was disseminated, or acted with gross negligence in efforts to determine the truth or falsity of such news." 129. The Commission also wishes to draw attention to the amount of compensation established in this case, an amount of 40 million dollars in itself constitutes a disproportionate penalty. As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated, "the fear of a disproportionate civil sanction may be as clearly or more intimidating and inhibiting for the exercise of freedom of expression as a criminal sanction, since it has the potential to compromise personal and family life of who reports or, as in the present case, publishes information about a public official, with the evident and invaluable result of self-censorship, both for the affected party and for other potential critics of the acts of a public servant”147. 130. In the present case, even though the prison sentences and the large sums in compensation were not made effective, by virtue of the cancellation that took place after the final judgment was adopted, the Commission emphasizes that the measures adopted by the State have been disproportionate since there were other more adequate means than the imposition of prison sentences and that do not generate the inhibitory effect on debates of public interest. In this sense, the judicial body had to weigh the statements of the journalist in accordance with the circumstances of public interest with which they were connected and in accordance with the standards and doctrine developed by the inter-American system. 131. In the balance between the satisfaction of the right to honor and reputation and the measure imposed148, the IACHR considers that the applicants' violation of freedom of expression through the criminal conviction and the exorbitant civil sanctions that were applied were manifestly disproportionate. 132. Based on the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State violated Articles 9 and 13 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations contemplated in Articles 1.1 and thereof, to the detriment of Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lappenti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and César Enrique Pérez Barriga. D. Right to a Fair Trial (article 8)149 133. According to the Inter-American Court, "all the bodies that exercise functions of a jurisdictional nature have the duty to adopt fair decisions based on full respect for the guarantees of due process established in Article 8 of the American Convention"150. In addition, according to the doctrine of this court, the "guarantees of independence and impartiality that are established by Article 8.1 are ‘essential elements of due process of law’”151. The Inter-American Court has indicated that "the State must guarantee the autonomous exercise of the judicial function as regards both its institutional aspect, that is, in relation to the Judiciary as a system, and also as regards its individual aspect, that is, in relation to the person of the specific I/A Court H.R., Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238, para. 74. 147 148 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 85. 149 Article 8 of the Convention provides that: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: […] c. adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense; […] f. the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts; […] 5. Criminal proceedings shall be public, except insofar as may be necessary to protect the interests of justice. I/A Court H. R., Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2018. Series C No. 345, para. 183. 150 I/A Court H. R., Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, párr. 132. 151 28