6 19. In the same brief, the State made its observations on the arguments filed by the representatives, regarding the alleged violations of the right to appeal the judgment before a higher court (Article 8(2)(h)) and the right to have a hearing before a competent, independent, and impartial court (Article 8(1)). 20. As to the reparation measures requested, the State pointed out that, in agreement with the [C]ommission and the [representatives], it “recogniz[es] Mr. Kimel’s right to be granted an integral reparation;” it further made some considerations regarding the alleged non-pecuniary damage and the legal costs and expenses requested, and finally it “lef[t] to [the C]ourt to determine in its discretion the scope” of “non-pecuniary” reparation measures. 21. In its brief of observations on the acknowledgment made by the State (supra para. 6), the Commission pointed out, inter alia, that it “positively assesses the acknowledgment of international responsibility […] made by […] Argentina [and] in view of such acknowledgment, the will expressed by the State and the importance of such acknowledgment as a positive step towards the fulfillment of its obligations are to be noted […].” Likewise, the representatives, in their respective brief, (supra para. 6) positively assessed the acknowledgment made by the State. 22. In the “memorandum of agreement” entered by the parties at the public hearing (supra para. 9), it was agreed as follows: 1) […] THE STATE ratifies that it acknowledges its international responsibility for the violation, in the case in point, of Articles 8(1) […] and 13 […] of the American Convention […], in relation to the general duty to respect and ensure human rights, as well as the obligation to adopt legislative or other measures as may be necessary under Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Eduardo Kimel. For the purposes of establishing the scope of the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the STATE, it is expressly put on record that Eduardo Kimel was arbitrarily sentenced to oneyear suspended imprisonment and to the payment of twenty thousand pesos ($ 20,000.00) as compensatory damages. Though such amount was never actually paid, in the case in point the alleged victim was convicted in violation of his right to freedom of thought and expression, in a criminal proceeding for defamation started against him by a retired judge who had been criticized in the book “La massacre de San Patricio” (the San Patricio Massacre) on account of his handling of the investigation into the murder of five clergymen during the military dictatorship. In view of the foregoing, THE STATE acknowledges its international responsibility for the violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression in the case in point, both as a result of the arbitrary sentence imposed on Mr. Kimel in the criminal proceeding started against him and of the amount ordered to be paid to plaintiff as compensatory damages. Thus, in view of the legal effects and the commitment undertaken by the Argentine State to respect human rights and to fully comply with the domestic and international standards thereon, as has been noted above, THE STATE has decided to acknowledge its international responsibility and abide by the reparation measures ordered […] by the Inter-American Court […]. 2) Furthermore, as a gesture of goodwill from THE VICTIM’S REPRESENTATIVES and with a view to reaching an agreement with THE STATE, THE VICTIM’S REPRESENTATIVES waive the claim regarding the alleged violation of the right to appeal the condemnatory judgment rendered in the criminal proceeding started (Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention); to have a hearing by an independent and impartial court (Article 8(1) of the American Convention); and to have effective judicial protection (Article 25 of the American Convention). 3) THE STATE, THE COMMISSION, AND THE VICTIM’S REPRESENTATIVES request the […] InterAmerican Court of Human Rights to determine, pursuant to the provisions of Article 63 of the American Convention, the scope of the reparation measures ordered in behalf of the victim Eduardo Kimel, which should include compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as satisfaction and non-repetition guarantees. […]