articles pursuant to Articles 2, 9 and 13 of the American Convention. 83. Nevertheless, the Court notes with concern the existence in Costa Rica of criminal laws exclusively addressed at the exercise of journalism; these include the said Printing Act. Although the State advised that, in a judgment of December 18, 2009, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had declared that article 7 of the said Act had been tacitly abrogated, the existence of this type of criminal norm could have had a chilling effect on the dissemination of information of public interest. The Court also underlines two additional aspects relating to the said article 7 that deserve special attention owing to their harmful effects for the exercise of freedom of expression. The first is the establishment of objective criminal liability for the editors, directors and owners of the media outlet, a provision that violates the principle of guilt in criminal matters. The second refers to the existence of increased penalization for conducts that could infringe honor when carried out by journalists; thus, providing harsher punishment for those whose profession involves, above all, the exercise of freedom of expression. 84. That said, the Court notes that article 1045 of the Civil Code – which was applied in this case – establishes that “[a]nyone who, by malice, omission, negligence or imprudence, causes another person harm shall be obliged to redress this, and also pay damages.” 85. The Court notes that the wording of that article is not incompatible per se with the standard of legality; nevertheless, its interpretation must be coherent with the Convention’s principles concerning freedom of expression contained in Article 13 of the American Convention and developed by this Court’s case law. 86. Regarding the legitimate purpose sought, this case falls within one of the purposes permitted by Article 13(2) of the Convention, namely: “respect for the rights or reputation of others.” 87. Also, with regard to the appropriateness of the measure, the Court notes that, in principle, the civil action filed by J.C.T.R. against Messrs. Moya Chacón and Parrales Chaves could have provided appropriate protection in relation to the violation of the right to honor that he suffered owing to the publication of the newspaper article 88. Therefore, the necessity and proportionality of the sanction imposed remain to be examined. To this end, the Court notes, preliminarily, that although it is true that Messrs. Moya Chacón and Parrales Chaves published information regarding J.C.T.R. that turned out to be inexact, it was not proved at the domestic level – and this is indicated in the Trial Court’s judgment when acquitting the two journalists of criminal charges – that the alleged victims had any specific intention of inflicting harm on the person or persons affected by the article. Thus, the judgment of the Trial Court indicated that no “direct intention to harm the honor of the complainant [could be observed], but very probably the only intention when publishing the article was to perform their task of providing information to the public.” 113 89. That said, the Trial Court did consider that the article published by Messrs. Moya Chacón and Parrales Chaves had been written “without taking the care required of their 113 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 16). 27