51 information, the author intended to inflict harm or knew full well that he was disseminating false information, or behaved with evident negligence in discovering the truth or falseness of the information;” s) In the case of Ricardo Canese, had the above mentioned international standards been applied, he could only have received a civil conviction, if it had been proved that he acted with real malice or evidence negligence; t) Should the decriminalization of certain types of conduct recommended by the Inter-American Commission be accepted, the Paraguayan legislation would have to be modified, because the criminal categories of slander and injuria are drafted inadequately, since they do not distinguish with sufficient clarity between statements that affect public individuals and those which refer to matters of public interest; they do not distinguish statements of facts from statements that constitute value judgments; they do not require the contested information to be false; they do not incorporate the test of real malice; and, in the case of slander, they invert the burden of proof against the defendant by requiring him to prove the truth; u) Although the new Penal Code has been drafted “like some European codes,” it still classifies injuria and libel as offenses, so that those who express opinions continue to lay themselves open to criminal proceedings and to prison sentences. In the same way, “it omits the necessary distinction between public individuals or matters of public interest, and private individuals.” The State failed and continues to fail to comply with its obligation to adopt the domestic norms, of a legislative or any other nature, necessary to make Mr. Canese’s right to freedom of expression effective, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention in relation to Article 13 thereof; and v) The State violated Article 13 of the Convention to the detriment of Ricardo Canese, in relation to Article 2 and to the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights established in Article 1(1) thereof. Arguments of the State 74. With regard to Articles 13 and 2 of the Convention, the State indicated that: a) It denied “any participation […] in the violation of [the] freedom of thought and expression” of Ricardo Canese; b) Paragraph 3 of Article 11 of the Convention allows States to protect the honor and reputation of the individual by law, and also authorizes “interference with or attacks on these legally protected attributes to be contested by means of judicial, civil or criminal proceedings;” c) The criminal proceedings against Mr. Canese took place under the 1910 Penal Code, partially modified in 1914. Protection of an individual’s honor and reputation, carried out by the State in accordance with the 1910 Penal Code, cannot constitute per se a violation of the Convention; d) “The Paraguayan Penal Code, drafted on the basis of nineteenth century legal doctrine, did not protect a wide range of the basic rights and guarantees of an individual accused of committing punishable acts and even