prepared by the Court, once, in a newspaper with widespread national circulation, in a legible and appropriate font size; and c) make this judgment, in its entirety, available for one year on an official website accessible to the public. 205. The State shall immediately notify this Court when it proceeds to carry out each of the publications and measures ordered. C. Guarantees of non-repetition 206. The Commission asked the Court to require the State to bring its domestic criminal laws on freedom of expression into line with the American Convention, given that some of its provisions are incompatible with Articles 2 and 13 thereof. It also emphasized the need to review the legal framework that regulates the crimes of honor and contempt (desacato) still in force in the country. 207. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to adopt the measures necessary to eliminate legal definitions that criminalize the exercise of freedom to report information and express an opinion on matters of public interest. They also requested that the State modify the laws on the right to freedom of expression. 208. The State affirmed that, in accordance with Article 13(2) of the American Convention, the right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right, given that this article allows for restrictions through the application of subsequent liability for the abusive exercise of that right, which must be established by law, have a legitimate purpose, and be necessary and proportional. 209. The Court notes that the matter under consideration in this case was the violation of Mr. Álvarez’s human rights stemming from the criminal case against him, together with the effectiveness of the remedies established in domestic law for such purposes. The Court does not consider it necessary to assess the impact of the criminal law applied in this case, given that the use of criminal law in such cases violates Article 13(2) of the Convention (supra paras. 112 to 132). D. Compensation i) Pecuniary damage 210. The Commission requested compensation for Mr. Álvarez for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage resulting from the violations established. 211. The representatives pointed out that for a period of seven years Mr. Tulio Álvarez was forced to support his family only with his earnings as a teacher at the university where he worked, which significantly affected the family’s income. 212. They added that the measure barring him from traveling outside the country forced him to curtail his professional activities and prevented him from continuing to carry out his commitments abroad. They emphasized that the international discredit affected his work as a consultant abroad. 213. They argued that in order to quantify the amount due for professional damage suffered from loss of fees as an international consultant, consideration should be given to the amounts earned in 1998 and 2003, compared with 2005 (a reduction of 60%) to 2006 (a reduction of 80%), which resulted in a total loss of earnings of US$ 79,157.35 from the cessation of 40