share capital that El Universo holds even today. Thus, if said judgment had been carried out, the alleged victims would have been insolvent, and the media outlet would have gone bankrupt. Furthermore, the Court recalls that the civil sanction imposed was the result of a criminal conviction that constituted a violation of the alleged victims’ right to freedom of expression. Therefore, the civil sanction undoubtedly constituted a risk to the alleged victims’ right to property. However, the Court notes that the alleged victims did not suffer direct damage to assets as a result of this judgment, since it was never executed. 141. The representatives argued that there was a loss of profits of 8 million dollars for the shareholders of El Universo due to the submission to trial, as a result of the deterioration of the equity value expected for the shareholders due to the lawsuit initiated by the then President. 204 The Court notes that, in effect, in 2011 El Universo saw a decrease in its advertising sales, and the newspaper's income in general. However, from the evidence submitted to this Court, it is considered that there is no clarity regarding how this decrease in sales affected the newspaper's assets, 205 nor about the causal link between the lawsuit against the alleged victims and the loss of profits for the shareholders. In this sense, the Court considers that other factors such as technological changes in the industry, or state competition in communication, could also be the cause of the effects on sales by the newspaper during the period in which the trial lasted. 206 142. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State is not responsible for the violation of Article 21 of the Convention, to the detriment of Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and César Enrique Pérez Barriga. D. Right of movement and residence D.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 143. The representatives argued that the persecution of Mr. Palacio Urrutia by the Judicial authorities and the criminal judges of Ecuador led to his forced displacement, constituting a violation of Article 22 of the Convention. Specifically, they maintained that as a consequence of the criminalization of his work, he was forced to leave Ecuador as the only way in which he could continue a life free from political and judicial persecution. By virtue of this, he was granted asylum in the United States of America. In these conditions, the representatives argued, the alleged victim and his family were forced to give up their life project in Ecuador, which included his work as a journalist reporting for El Universo. In other words, they argued that his life project was frustrated due to the harmful action of the judicial bodies of his country. 144. The State maintained that there is not nor has been any prohibition for Mr. Palacio Urrutia to return to Ecuador, nor have there been complaints of harassment or threats against him that could have activated the domestic protection mechanisms. Therefore, the State pointed out, it is not possible to establish international responsibility for the violation of the right of movement. Additionally, the State indicated that Messrs. Pérez were also prosecuted for the same crime, and yet only Mr. Palacio Urrutia decided to leave the country, which demonstrates the absence of a risk that would have forced 204 Cf. Expert statement by Fausto Ortiz de la Cadena (merits file, folio 1068). Cf. Expert statement by Mauricio Santiago Sosa Chiriboga on June 1, 2021 (merits file, folio 2072) and Expert statement by Gloria Paulina Serrano on June 1, 2021 (merits file, folio 968). 205 206 Cf. Expert statement by Fausto Ortiz de la Cadena on May 28, 2021 (merits file, folio 1073 to 1074). 47