22 versus private subjects. Worst of all, it has been interpreted to mean that a defendant must prove the accuracy of the charge being made in the reported statements. This kind of law induces self-censorship in reporters. In a democratic society, the burden of proof must be distributed in such a way that a distinction is made for the passive subjects who are the targets of the allegations. A public official must prove at least two different aspects in making the case that the statements are inaccurate, and even to prove that they are defamatory: first, the public official must prove that the person who made the statements had full knowledge that they were false; and second, that the statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth. Article 152 of the Criminal Code, which concerns the publication of offenses against honor, is a violation of the right to seek, receive and impart information through whatever medium, because it makes it a crime to publish or reproduce such offenses and does not distinguish between matters of private interest and those of public interest. In a democratic society, under no circumstances should it be a punishable offense to impart information on matters of public interest. The Press Act bill adopts this reasoning, as it provides that dissemination of information is not a punishable offense when the information concerns matters of public interest. Article 152 of the Criminal Code has a terrible chilling effect on the exercise of the freedoms established in Article 13 of the American Convention. The U.S. legal concept of “actual malice” has had an enormous impact not just in Latin America but worldwide. The Spanish Penal Code makes provision for this concept in its articles 204 and 207. The Costa Rican bill on freedom of expression and freedom of the press has also used the concept of “actual malice.” While this bill does not incorporate the full doctrine, it does introduce important elements having to do with the subjective element of the offenses. The theory of actual malice involves other factors, such as: full knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard for whether it was false or not; a distinction made for the targets of the offending comments –i.e., public figures versus private persons; the principle that recourse to criminal proceedings is unnecessary; and the burden of proof on the public official. In Costa Rica, prosecution of crimes against honor is by private parties. Proceedings are instituted by private parties, not by public prosecutors or other public authorities. Private interests are at stake and the aggrieved party may withdraw the case, reach a negotiated settlement or retract the charges. Prosecution of public action crimes involves a preliminary phase, an intermediate phase and a final phase or trial. Prosecution of crimes by private action, on the other hand, does not involve any preliminary or intermediate phase, which means that no authority has an opportunity to review the complaint or at least conduct an investigation to make a value judgment as to whether criminal prosecution is warranted. Therefore, almost all complaints alleging crimes prosecuted by private action end up going to trial and eventual judgment. In Costa Rica, such proceedings may last anywhere from one and a half to two years, even though the proceeding is a simple one. The complaint is filed directly with the court, which first convenes a hearing to explore the possibility of a negotiated settlement or retraction; absent that, it goes on to convene hearings on the criminal complaint itself, sets the trial date, and conducts the trial.