56 Army filed against Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, and the alleged declaration of the former Governor of Antioquia that Valle Jaramillo was an “enemy of the Armed Forces” (supra paras. 30(a), 68, 171, 173, 175 to 177 and 192). As mentioned above, the State acknowledged the complaint for slander and denied that there was sufficient evidence to prove the declaration by the departmental authority (supra paras. 30(a), 173 and 194). 196. Regarding the complaint for libel or slander and, as indicated in the preceding chapter, the Court considers that a judicial proceeding for an offense of this type does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the accused person’s right to freedom of expression. This is because anyone who considers that his honor has been harmed has recourse to the judicial mechanisms that the State has provided for his protection.139 Although this kind of complaint may be imprudent or frivolous, it does not constitute per se a violation of the right to freedom of expression of the accused. Rather, in the instant case, an eventual decision by the judge of the case would have allowed the truth to be established regarding the allegedly unlawful act that Jesús María Valle Jaramillo publicly denounced; namely, the supposed connivance between members of the Colombian Army and the so-called paramilitary groups. To state that the complaint against him for the offense of slander or libel violated Jesús María Valle Jaramillo’s right to freedom of expression would lead to the total exclusion of the settlement of such disputes under administrative proceedings.140 In this regard, the Court reiterates that freedom of expression is not an absolute right and that it is subject to certain restrictions.141 Consequently, the Court finds that the State did not violate Article 13 of the Convention to the detriment of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo by charging him with the offense of slander or libel. 197. Regarding the alleged stigmatization of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo because the departmental authorities supposedly declared him an “enemy of the Armed Forces,” the Court has already indicated that this fact has not been proved in the instant case (supra para. 177). Based on the above, the Court finds that the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention to the detriment of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo has not been proved as regards the said allegation. XIII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)142 198. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has resulted in harm entails the obligation to repair it adequately.143 All aspects of this 139 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 99, para. 101, and Case of Kimel, supra note 14, para. 55. 140 Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado, supra note 128, para. 177, and Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 128, para. 122. 141 Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 120; Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 131, and Case of Kimel, supra note 14, para. 54. 142 Article 63(1) of the Convention establishes that: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 143 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 119, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 217.