80 imprisonment and an additional fine. The Penal Code of Paraguay that entered into force in November 1998 reappraised the unjust penalty by establishing a maximum sanction of up to one year’s imprisonment or a fine. The new Code is more favorable because it reduced the minimum and the maximum sanctions; c) Although it is true that the prison sentence imposed on Ricardo Canese did not exceed the limited established in the new penal legislation, it is necessary to consider whether the sanction should be reduced proportionately to the reduction in the sanction established by the legislator. The most favorable sanction must be applied, even when the person has been condemned, since the legislator has reappraised the unjust penalty, because he considers that a lesser sanction should be imposed for the same conduct; d) Mr. Canese should benefit from the most favorable sanction under the new penal Code; in other words, the sanction can be imprisonment or the payment of a fine, but both sanctions cannot be applied without violating the Convention, “as happened in this case;” e) Since the minimum penalty for the offense of slander under the 1914 Penal Code was applied to Ricardo Canese, according to the pro reo principle, the minimum penalty established by the new legislation should be applied to him. As of the entry into force of the new Penal Code, there is a more favorable sanction that should have been applied to Ricardo Canese. “Ricardo Canese requested the application of the new penal legislation for different reasons, including procedural issues, [so that] the mere request should have been sufficient for the judicial authorities, de oficio, to modify the sanction to the most favorable one;” and f) The State violated Article 9 of the Convention to the detriment of Ricardo Canese, in relation to the general obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in Article 1(1) thereof. Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victim 169. Regarding Article 9 of the Convention, the representatives stated that: a) They endorsed the arguments submitted by the Commission. They also emphasized that the concrete application of the penal normative violated the principle of legality and retroactivity. In this respect, they indicated that Mr. Canese was “applied the most onerous sanction non-retroactively,” even when he had requested the retroactive application of the new Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, both in force as of 1998. These Codes were less harsh for two reasons: first, because they established the sanction of a fine that was alternative and not additional to imprisonment, so that the person convicted for the offense of slander could not be sentenced to the two types of sanctions simultaneously and, second, because the minimum and maximum sanctions were reduced; b) When sentencing Mr. Canese, the judge imposed the minimum sanction of those established in the previous code. However, the minimum sanction for the offense of slander under the new legislation should have been applied; namely, a fine equal to 180 days. Mr. Canese filed several appeals