be applied by the lower criminal courts with certain frequency. 36 49. In any case, when making an objective analysis, it cannot be denied that the criminal norm appears to have been applied in this case, revealing a certain disregard for the higher court’s understanding that the norm was unenforceable. Indeed, in its judgment of January 10, 2007, the Second Circuit Trial Court of San José, Goicoechea, indicated that the defendants’ conduct could not be included under the offense of libel from the criminal perspective owing to the absence of malice in their conduct; thus, evidently, that court not only considered that the criminal norm was in force but also applied it, even though it led to their acquittal because one of the elements of the offense was not present. 50. And, although the uncertainty concerning the validity and non-enforceability of the said rule in casu requires the Court to be prudent as regards the reparations it chooses, it does not eliminate the need to reflect on the possible responsibility of the State for the human rights violations committed in the context of the jurisdictional application of the Printing Act. Even though the provision has not been declared incompatible with the Convention, the most lenient measures of reparation, such as recourse to the Legislature, sometimes permit a productive discussion initiated by the human rights courts and by the domestic constitutional courts, so that an exercise in measured reasoning should be performed when on the point of proclaiming the invalidity of an act of a State Party. 51. In the first cases in which the Inter-American Court had occasion to rule on the nonconventionality of legal provisions that were not applied in a specific case, it determined that the said analysis would not be possible. 37 When the Court, on interpreting the judgment in the case of El Amparo v. Venezuela, opted once more not to rule on the issue – specifically on the incompatibility, per se, of an article of the Venezuelan Code of Military Justice with the Convention – the brilliant Judge Cançado Trindade 38 distanced himself from what he understood to be a “self-imposed limitation by the Court.” In his separate opinion, the judge asserted that the mere existence of a norm potentially applicable to the victims that was incompatible with the Convention would allow the Court to analyze this and possibly find the State objectively responsible. 39 Accordingly, he described in detail and defended the thesis of 36 Evidence file, fl. 1479: “It can be added to the arguments that have been extensively developed by the Third Chamber, that article 7 of the Printing Act has no place in the laws of Costa Rica because it is totally at odds with the Constitution. It can be seen that this article 7 is prior to 1906, the year in which the modern theory of crime emerged that introduced the concept of actus reus and a precise definition in the structure of an offense. Thus, the said article 7 does not describe actions and settles for the nomen iuris. The criminal courts insist in applying article 7 of the Printing Act – already abrogated – disregarding the opinion of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. It could be argued that, under our civil law, case law is not binding (except for the rulings of the constitutional chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice), so that the interpretations made by the criminal cassation chamber do not have normative value for immediate application by other courts of the Republic.” 37 See cases of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Judgment of September 14, 1996; Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Reparations and costs, and Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Judgment of January 29, 1997. While drawing up this opinion, with profound sadness, I received the news of the death of the judge and professor, Antônio Augusto Cançado. I consider it essential to underline the significance of his contribution to the institutional configuration of this Court. His awareness of the Court’s mission was specifically illustrated in an address given in Bogota in 2006: 38 “While, in other latitudes, the use of force was being discussed, at the seat of the Inter-American Court [...] our Latin American countries, faithful to our best legal traditions, renewed our belief in the primacy of law. And this was a renewed profession of faith in law as instrumental for the realization of justice [...]. As Latin Americans, we should be proud of our international law tradition.” (Address by Professor Cançado Trindade, on receiving the title of Professor Honoris Causa from the Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia, on January 26, 2006. In: CANÇADO TRINDADE, Antônio Augusto. El Ejercicio de la Función Judicial Internacional: Memorias de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. 5ª ed. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey Editora, 2018. p. 326.) 39 IACtHR. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Order of April 16, 1997 (Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs). Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade.