CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE RICARDO C. PÉREZ MANRIQUE CASE OF MOYA CHACÓN ET AL. V. COSTA RICA JUDGMENT OF MAY 23, 2022 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this opinion, I concur with the determinations made in the judgment in the case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica of May 23, 2022, and I attach this opinion in order to analyze the international standards applicable to the protection of journalists in relation to their criminal and civil liability. Therefore, this opinion is organized as follows: first, I will introduce the case, and then examine the due diligence that should be required of journalists with regard to the verification of sources, and the civil and criminal liability that can be required in relation to the exercise of journalism. 2. The case relates to the imposition of subsequent liability on the journalists Ronald Moya Chacón and Freddy Parrales Chaves. They were sentenced to pay civil compensation for moral damage because they published a newspaper article reporting on presumed irregularities in the control of the smuggling of liquor into Costa Rica in the Panamanian border region, which mentioned several police officers who were allegedly involved in this. 3. In the judgment, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“the IACtHR” or “the Court”) declared that the State of Costa Rica was responsible for the violation of Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1 of this instrument, to the detriment of Ronald Moya Chacón and Freddy Parrales Chaves. 4. Regarding the domestic proceedings, on January 10, 2007, the Second Circuit Trial Court of San José, Goicoechea, handed down a judgment in which, after reclassifying calumny as libel by the press, it decided to acquit Freddy Parrales Chaves, Ronald Moya Chacón and the Minister of Public Security “of all criminal liability for the offenses of defamation and libel by the press” because the subjective element of the offense had not been proved. Regarding the journalists, the Trial Court considered that they had not had a “direct intention to harm the honor of the complainant, but very probably their only intention when publishing the news item was to perform their task of informing the public,” although, in this case, they did so “without taking the care that their profession required.” 5. That judgment also considered that “a harmful act” had been committed that, although not defined as a crime, did “give rise to civil liability caused directly by the publication of a false fact that was injurious and denigrating in a written medium.” On this basis, the Trial Court decided to declare the civil action for damages admissible and, consequently, sentenced, as jointly and severally liable, Freddy Parrales Chaves and Ronald Moya Chacón, together with the Minister of Public Security, La Nación, and the State of Costa Rica to the joint payment of five million colones (approximately US$9,600 at the date of the facts) for non-pecuniary damage and one million colones (approximately US$1,900 at the date of the facts) for personal costs. The Trial Court’s judgment was confirmed by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on December 20, 2007.