89 Rohrmoser, were ordered to pay court costs in the amount of ¢1,000.00 (one thousand colones) and personal damages totaling ¢3,810,000.00 (three million eight hundred ten thousand colones); and 8) Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s name was entered into the Judiciary’s Record of Convicted Felons. The Court finds that the State must take all necessary judicial, administrative and any other measures to nullify and abolish any and all effects of the November 12, 1999 judgment. 196. By an order dated September 7, 2001, the Court ordered the State to adopt provisional measures on behalf of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa (supra para. 17), as follows: “a) to adopt forthwith those measures necessary to suspend the entry of Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s name in the Judiciary’s Record of Convicted Felons; b) to suspend the order for “La Nación” to publish the “Now Therefore” portion of the conviction handed down by the San José First Circuit Criminal Trial Court on November 12, 1999; c) to suspend the order to create a “link” at the La Nación Digital website between the disputed articles and the operative part of that court judgment. In other words, the Court had ordered a stay of some of the effects of the November 12, 1999 ruling, and had further ordered that it should remain in place “until such time as the bodies of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights ha[d] arrived at a final decision on the case.” Given what the Court set out in the preceding paragraph, it considers that the State’s obligations vis-à-vis the ordered provisional measures are now replaced by the obligations ordered in the present judgment, effective as of the date of its notification. 197. The Court further considers that the State must respect and ensure the right to freedom of thought and expression, in the terms of Article 13 of the American Convention and the present judgment. 198. The Court also considers that within a reasonable period of time, the State must adapt its domestic legal system to conform to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, in relation to Article 2 thereof. * * * 199. With regard to the claim seeking reimbursement of the payment that would be made if the civil damages, court costs and personal damages ordered in the November 12, 1999 court judgment are enforced, the Court understands that this claim has been settled by the Court’s decision regarding nullification of the effects of that judgment (supra para. 195). 200. With regard to the other claims asserted by the Commission (supra para. 188 g.3 and g.4) and by the alleged victims’ representatives (supra para. 189.h), the Court deems that the present judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. 126 However, the Court is persuaded that the events in the instant case caused Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa suffering, because of his criminal conviction, which the Court has already held constituted a violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression. Fairness dictates that compensation must be paid for the non-pecuniary damages he sustained. 127 Thus, the Court finds that the State must pay Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa the sum of US$ 20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States 126 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 7, para. 166; Case of Myrna Mack-Chang, supra note 7, para. 260; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 7, para. 96. 127 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 7 para. 166; Case of Myrna Mack-Chang, supra note 7, para. 260; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 7, para. 96.