85 applied.” And this is so, because there is a new Penal Code, which has transformed radically the penal classification of slander. 186. It has been established that, for approximately four years during which a new Penal Code was in force that contained more favorable norms than those applied in the judgments convicting Mr. Canese, this more favorable normative was not taken into account by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay, despite the appeals filed by Mr. Canese, requesting, inter alia, the review of his sentence; and it was not considered, de oficio, by the competent judge. The Court considers that, in accordance with the principle of the retroactivity of the most favorable penal norm, those courts should have compared the most favorable aspects of the new Code applicable to the specific case and determined whether the sanctions imposed on Mr. Canese should be reduced, or whether only the sanction of a fine should be imposed, since the latter had ceased to be additional to the sanction of imprisonment for the offense of slander and had become an autonomous alternative. 187. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State did not duly apply the principle of the retroactivity of the most favorable penal norm in Mr. Canese’s case for approximately four years and, therefore, violated Article 9 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to his detriment. XII REPARATIONS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) Arguments of the Commission 188. Regarding measures of reparation, the Commission indicated that “reparation should be granted individually to Ricardo Canese, the person whose rights have been violated.” It also stated that the reforms made to the section on offenses against honor of the Penal Code and to Paraguayan legislation, which were not applied during the proceedings against Mr. Canese, did not release the State from its obligation to make full reparation to the latter for the “violations established in the application.” The Commission presented the following requests for reparations and costs to the Court: a) In its application brief, it requested the Court to order the State to ensure that the reform of the legislation on offenses against honor, included in the 1998 Penal Code, was fully and thoroughly complied with by all State authorities; b) In its brief with final arguments, it requested the Court to order the State “to reform all the legislation concerning offenses against honor included in the Penal Code. In particular, to establish clearly, with no room for interpretation, that statements on matters of public interest should not and cannot be penalized.” The reformed Code, which still includes offenses against honor, continues to be used as an instrument to create an intimidating environment that inhibits statements of public interest. The State must guarantee the non-repetition of situations such as those that befell Mr. Canese;