their fundamental rights or that lead to the determination of their rights and obligations”180. In addition, the Inter-American Court has mentioned that an appeal is not effective," when its uselessness has been demonstrated by practice, because the Judiciary lacks the independence necessary to decide impartially”181. 163. The IACHR observes that in the extension of the appeal judgment, on September 26, 2011, it was decided to abandon the appeal and annulment proceedings by Emilio Palacio Urrutia, so that his appeal was also subsequently declared as "inadmissible". With respect to César Pérez Barriga, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, the cassation ruling of confirmed the convictions. 164. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the State did not guarantee the right to judicial protection enshrined in Article 25.1 of the Convention against Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lappenti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and César Enrique Pérez Barriga. V. CONCLUSIONS 165. Based on the considerations of fact and law contained in this report, the IACHR concludes that the State of Ecuador violated, to the detriment of Mr. Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lappenti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and César Enrique Pérez Barriga, the rights recognized in articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 9 (Freedom from ex post facto laws), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof. VI. 166. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis and conclusions of this report, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS TO THE STATE OF ECUADOR: 1. To annul the criminal conviction imposed to Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lappenti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, César Enrique Pérez Barriga, and the company El Universo and all the consequences that derive from it; 2. Compensate Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lappenti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and César Enrique Pérez Barriga for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages caused by the violations established herein; 3. Adapt its domestic criminal law in accordance with the State's obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of freedom of expression, resorting to civil liability for cases of expression of public interest, or concerning the performance of public officials, with observance of the principle of proportionality and real malice. 4. Adapt the regime of civil sanctions in the area of freedom of expression, in accordance with its obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights, which implies establishing if the communicator in the dissemination of information intended to inflict harm or was conducted with manifest negligence in the search for the truth or falsity of the news, respecting the principles of necessity and proportionality in the establishment of compensation if applicable. 5. To carry out a public act of reparation in favor of journalist Emilio Palacio and the directors of El Universo with the presence of high authorities and to acknowledge that they suffered persecution and harassment for the performance off their duties. 6. Disseminate the present report in the Judiciary of Ecuador. I/A Court H.R., Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 130; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 141. 180 I/A Court H.R., Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and (8) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24; I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No.18, para. 108; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cesti Hurtado v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 125; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 137; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 136. 181 35