87 prosecuted and sanctioned in future for expressing his opinion on matters that interest the Paraguayan community in general;” c) The test used by the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay in the said acquittal is not adapted to international standards on freedom of expression, because “it suggests that the application of a sanction for the offenses of slander and injuria in relation to matters of public interest involving public officials or individuals, depends on the truth of the allegedly injurious or defamatory statements;” d) The composition of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay has changed radically over the last year. Of the nine justices who composed this Court, seven abandoned their seats owing to an impeachment proceeding or to their resignation; therefore, “the case law of this court may be modified by the new members in the short term;” e) Despite Mr. Canese’s acquittal and the reform of Paraguay’s legislation, individuals who report irregularities in the administration of public funds continue to be prosecuted; and f) The decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay of April 27, 2004, recognized Mr. Canese’s right to reimbursement of the costs and expenses he incurred before the national courts. However, this decision has not been executed, and he has not been reimbursed for the expenses he incurred during the “unfair criminal proceedings.” 190. In view of the foregoing, the representatives requested the Court: a) To order the State to acknowledge publicly its international responsibility for the facts that prejudiced Ricardo Canese, and to apologize publicly; b) To order the State to publish “in two newspapers with widespread national circulation” the express acknowledgement of its responsibility for the facts and the apology; c) To order the State to eliminate the offenses of libel, injuria and slander from the Penal Code, because “[t]he criminalization of the free expression of ideas is contrary to the objective of guaranteeing a democratic way of life;” d) To order the State to adopt the legislative or any other provisions to ensure that, in the context of criminal proceedings, measures of personal coercion will only be used exceptionally, so that freedom of movement is only limited when necessary “to prevent the imminent flight of someone subject to a proceeding;” e) To establish precise criteria concerning permissible restrictions to freedom of expression to protect a person’s right to honor, which will serve as a guide, so that the different State bodies can adapt their legislative or any other provisions to the American Convention; f) To establish an amount in fairness for compensation of pecuniary damage, “taking into account the testimony of the [alleged] victim.” The