reparation to the person whose honor has been harmed, the purpose of this should not be to punish the originator of the information, but rather to provide redress to the person concerned. 108 In this regard, States should exercise the greatest care when imposing reparations, so that they do not discourage the press from contributing to discussion of matters of legitimate public interest. 109 b.4 Application of the standards to this specific case 79. The Court will now examine the compatibility with the American Convention of the subsequent liability imposed on the alleged victims in this case, taking into account the preceding standards. 80. First, the Court notes that the newspaper article “OIJ accuses police chief of failing to detain truck with liquor,” published La Nación on December 17, 2005, and signed by the journalists, Ronald Moya Chacón and Freddy Parrales Chaves, can be classified as an item of information that, also, relates to a matter of public interest, which is the presumed existence of the smuggling of liquor into Costa Rica in the border region with Panama in which several police chiefs were allegedly involved. In particular, in the case of J.C.T.R. – who subsequently filed a complaint against the journalists – the article mentioned that he had been investigated for the said facts and, evidently, at the time, this formed part of the public debate. The Court notes that even the judgment of the Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José recognized that “the news item was of public interest.” 110 81. The Court will now apply the previously described standards in order to verify whether the subsequent liability to which the journalists were subject (that is, the civil sentence to pay, jointly and severally, five million colones for non-pecuniary damage and one million colones for costs) was compatible with the Convention. 82. Regarding the obligation that possible subsequent liability must be previously established by law, both formally and substantively, the Court notes that, in the instant case, Messrs. Moya Chacón and Parrales Chaves were prosecuted for the offense of libel established in article 7 of the Printing Act in relation to Article 145 of the Criminal Code, as well as for the offense of defamation established in article 146 of the said Criminal Code, 111 although, finally, they were acquitted in the criminal sphere and received a civil conviction in application of Article 1045 of the Civil Code. 112 Thus, the journalists did not receive the sanction established in article 7 of the Printing Act or Articles 145 and 146 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the Court will not examine the conventionality of those Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34. “Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression”, CCPR/C/GC/34, of September 12, 2011, para. 47. In addition, expert witness Joan Barata indicated that, in the case of “any sanction whatsoever that is established under civil law, it should be understood that its purpose is not to punish, but to restore to the “injured” party his legitimate situation; that is, I believe, the first issue that should be considered.” Cf. Expert opinion provided by Joan Barata Mir at the public hearing held on February 14, 2022, during the Court’s 146th regular session. 108 109 Cf. ECHR, Jersild v. Denmark [GS], no. 15890/89, Judgment of September 23, 1994, para. 35, and Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania [GS], no. 33348/96, Judgment of December 17, 2004, para. 111. 110 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 20). 111 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 16). Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 21). 112 26