56 195. This Court has held that the criminal punishment imposed on Mr. Tristán Donoso affected his right to freedom of expression (supra para. 130). So, the Tribunal finds that, in accordance with its case law,159 the State must set aside such judgment in all of its points, including its effects on third parties, to wit: a) The qualification of Mr. Tristán Donoso as guilty of the crime of defamation; b) the imposition of an 18 month imprisonment sentence (replaced by a 75 days’ fine); c) the disqualification for holding public office for the same term; d) the civil compensation pending determination; and e) the inclusion of his name in any criminal records. The State shall comply with the foregoing within one year as from the date notice of the instant Judgment be served upon it. b) Obligation to publish the Judgment 196. The representatives requested the Tribunal that, for the Panamanian society to "learn the truth about what happened", it order the State to publish the relevant parts of the instant Judgment in the Official Gazette and in two newspapers of greater nationwide circulation. Likewise, they indicated that the media in which the Judgment is to be published should “be established by mutual agreement [with the victim].” 197. As the Court has ruled in other cases,160 as a satisfaction measure, the State shall publish, only once, in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper of nationwide circulation, paragraphs 1 to 5; 30 to 57; 68 to 83; 90 to 130; 152 to 157 and the operative part of the instant Judgment, without footnotes. Such publications shall be effected within six months as from the date notice of the instant Judgment be served. c) Public acknowledgment of international responsibility 198. The Commission requested that the State publicly acknowledge its international responsibility for having violated the human rights of the victim in the instant case. 199. The representatives requested that the State be ordered to hold a public ceremony of apology and acknowledgment of its international responsibility for the violations. Such ceremony “shall be headed by the highest representative of the State, and other representatives of government organs shall also be present, in particular, of the Judicial Branch and of the Procuradoría General de la Nación [Office of the National Attorney General],” and the media shall be there. The foregoing shall be done owing to the fact that the reputation of the victim was seriously affected and that the case was given wide coverage by the Panamanian media. 200. The Court notes that, although in a recent case involving the right to freedom of expression it was considered pertinent to hold a ceremony of public recognition due to the particular circumstances thereof, such measure is often, although not 159 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 79, para. 195; Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 101, para. 253; and Case of Kimel, supra note 78, para. 123. 160 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, Operative Paragraph 5 d); Case of Ticona-Estrada et al., supra note 6, para. 160; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 234.