12 acquittal one year later, in May 1999. The case went back to trial in November of that year.” Her husband “spent more than a month going to court every day, from morning till late afternoon.” This drove him to take medications to calm his nerves and even to seek psychological help. He asked that she and the children move in with her mother, while he stayed alone in the family home. Her husband was unable to see anyone and unable to live a normal, tranquil life. In November 1999, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa was convicted of criminal defamation, and the writs of cassation that his attorneys filed were denied by the very same Third Chamber of the Supreme Court in January 2001. It was then that her husband turned to the Inter-American Commission to begin proceedings. When her husband was ultimately convicted of criminal defamation, “he was miserable and said over and over again, almost obsessively, that he was finished as a journalist because he [had] been convicted of criminal defamation and [was] registered as a convicted felon in the Judiciary’s Record of Convicted Felons. No reader would ever believe his stories, thinking instead that he was nothing but a liar casting aspersions on other people’s good name or reputation; so his career in journalism was over.” However, following the conviction the newspaper gave her husband a number of assignments and investigations. He completed them, but then “was afraid to publish his articles, fearing another trial; while writing his pieces, he was always wondering what the criminal court judges would think [about the content of the articles]. He was paralyzed by fear during this period.” As a consequence of all these legal proceedings, Mrs. González Picado and her husband Mauricio Herrera Ulloa had to sell the family home and move elsewhere, where he was not thought of as “the one who lost the trial and was convicted of criminal defamation.” 62. The expert Rubén Hernández Valle presented his expert report in writing, during the expert testimony given in the hearing on preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs (supra para. 50). 15 63. Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa presented documents during his testimony at the public hearing on preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs (supra para. 50). 16 64. Mr. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser also introduced documentation during his testimony at the public hearing on preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs (supra para. 50). 17 65. When they submitted their final written pleadings on May 31, 2004 (supra para. 53), the alleged victims’ representatives attached a number of documents as evidence. 18 15 Cf. folios 3450 to 3461 of the single volume of evidence presented during the public hearing held on April 30 and May 1, 2004. 16 Cf. folios 3468 to 3671 of the single volume of evidence presented during the public hearing held on April 30 and May 1, 2004. 17 Cf. folios 3449 and 3466 to 3467 of the single volume of evidence presented during the public hearing held on April 30 and May 1, 2004.