51 i) the State failed to prove the presence of a pressing social need that would justify the restriction on freedom of expression that the criminal case and conviction implied; j) the criminal prosecution and punishment applied to Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa as supposedly subsequent liability, were in no sense proportionate to any legitimate State interest; the use of the State’s ultimate restraint mechanism, i.e., criminal prosecution and punishment, was not justified, particularly when there were other alternatives to achieve the aim sought; k) criminal punishments for making certain statements could, in some cases, even be regarded as indirect methods of curtailing freedom of expression; l) Costa Rica’s criminal defamation law violates Article 13 of the Convention because it allows the defense of justification (exceptio veritatis) only in certain circumstances and requires that the respondent prove the truth of his statements; m) by violating Article 13 of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Mr. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser, the State has failed to comply with the general duty to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, as provided in Article 1(1) of the Convention; and n) the State must adopt all measures necessary so that its own system of domestic laws gives full effect to the Convention’s provisions, as Article 2 thereof requires. 101(3) With regard to the inclusion of Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s conviction in the Judiciary’s Record of Convicted Felons, the Commission argued that: a) in Costa Rica, “the existence of a conviction is sufficient in law for the convicted person’s name to be entered into the Judiciary’s Record of Convicted Felons.” Once the judgment becomes final, registration in the Record of Convicted Felons is automatic and need not be ordered by the judge in the judgment. There is no effective remedy against listing in the Judiciary’s Record of Convicted Felons save for recourse to the solutions under international human rights law; b) in the instant case, the legal effect of entering Mr. Herrera Ulloa’s name into the Judiciary’s Record of Convicted Felons was to restrict the exercise of his fundamental rights with regard to obtaining: 1) entry into civil service; 2) a driver’s license; 3) an application for a degree examination and admission; 4) a driver’s insurance policy; 5) a pension; 6) the right to adopt minors; and 7) work in Costa Rica and abroad; c) having his name listed as a convicted felon is detrimental to Mr. Herrera Ulloa’s name, honor and reputation vis-à-vis his family and Costa Rican society as a whole, a situation exacerbated by the fact that many