18 the statement is corroborated. In principle, however, diligence in reporting does not extend to confirming the truthfulness of the statement, as truthfulness could only be required of the person who made the statement. Thus, the veracity required in the information reported refers to a subjective rather than objective truth; in other words, it refers to fulfillment of the “minimum required to check the information” by demonstrating that a journalist’s conduct was driven mainly be a desire to report a matter of public interest and that he has been reasonably diligent about getting to the truth. A distinction must be made between erroneous information and false information. The latter carries with it criminal and civil liability. Erroneous information “only generates civil liability when it can be shown that the person or thing imparting the information has not practiced diligence, care or caution to avoid inflicting harm, and has not acted in good faith.” This is where the principle of “actual malice” developed by the United States Supreme Court comes into play. Article 152 of Costa Rica’s Criminal Code is incompatible with the first paragraph of Article 13 of the American Convention, inasmuch as it restricts freedom of information by imposing a criminal punishment upon a journalist for reporting defamatory speech originally made by a third party, even though the journalist has acted diligently, with strict adherence to the truth, and has made the necessary inquiries as to the reliability of the source. This violation is an illegitimate restriction of the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds” that is every journalist’s right in a democratic society. Article 149 of the Criminal Code also violates the first subparagraph of Article 13 of the Convention, because it forces a kind of self-censorship upon journalists fearful of criminal prosecution. It also violates the right that every society has to be duly informed of everything when the information has to do with matters of public interest or involves a public official. The criminal punishment established in Article 152 of the Costa Rican Criminal Code for cases where the exceptions to proof of truth apply as provided in Article 149 of that Code, is an unlawful restriction on journalists’ freedom of expression, is incompatible with the needs of a democratic society, and does not respond to a pressing social need. The Costa Rican provisions on “defamation, insults, and calumny […] stifle criticism of public officials and have the effect of censoring the publication of articles about alleged illegal activities” by public officials. The Costa Rican criminal law is therefore incompatible with Article 13 of the American Convention. In Costa Rica, a journalist who reports news whose source can be traced to other foreign media outlets and that contains alleged defamatory statements against a Costa Rican public official must prove that the statements or facts reported by the foreign press are true; also, there can be no evidence of malice on that journalist’s part. The possibility of establishing modern laws on freedom of the press is under discussion in Costa Rica; recently, the committee studying various bills on this subject submitted its opinion, which would substantially overhaul the laws currently on the books.