80 objectivity. This way, courts inspire the necessary trust and confidence in the parties to the case and in the citizens of a democratic society. 172. As has been proved, in the criminal proceeding against Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, the writ of cassation was filed on two occasions (supra para. 95(r) and 95(w)). The Court notes that the four principal justices and the alternate justice on the bench of the Third Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court when the May 7, 1999 decision on the writ of cassation filed by the attorney for Mr. Félix Przedborski to challenge the acquittal was handed down, were the very same justices who decided the January 24, 2001 writs of cassation that the defense attorney of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and the special counsel of the newspaper “La Nación”, and Mssrs. Herrera Ulloa and Vargas Rohrmoser, respectively, filed to challenge the conviction (supra para. 95(y)). 173. When the Third Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court decided the first writ of cassation, it nullified the court judgment being challenged and ordered the case sent back to the competent court for retrial, based, inter alia, on the grounds that “[t]he bases of the judgment are not sufficient to reasonably discard the presence of actual or possible malice (with regard to the crimes charged).” (supra para. 95(s)). 174. The justices of the Third Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court should have abstained from taking cognizance of the two writs of cassation filed to challenge the November 12, 1999 conviction because when the writ of cassation filed to challenge the May 29, 1998 acquittal was heard, those very same justices examined the merits and did not confine themselves to the reasons of law. 175. Based on the above considerations, the Court concludes that the justices of the Third Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court that decided the two writs of cassation filed to challenge the conviction, did not meet the impartiality requirement. In the instant case, therefore, the State violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa. c) Right to be presumed innocent (Article 8(2) of the Convention) 176. The representatives of the alleged victims argued that in the case prosecuted against Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and the newspaper “La Nación” the Costa Rican courts, by the manner in which they applied the maxim of exceptio veritatis, “establish[ed] a kind of presumption of guilt, or at least reversed the burden of proof to the journalist’s disadvantage.” They contend, therefore, that the State violated Article 8(2) of the Convention. 177. Given the circumstances of the instant case, the violation being alleged must be examined in the context of Article 13 of the Convention. In the judgment delivered by the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on November 12, 1999, the latter required that Mr. Herrera Ulloa prove the veracity of the news published in the Belgian newspapers and then reproduced in “La Nación”, which he had simply cited. 178. As a consequence of the situation described in the preceding paragraph and as stated in the chapter on the violation of freedom of thought and expression