Article 146 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal) penalizes with a twenty to sixty days-fine any person who dishonors another or disseminates allegations capable of affecting their reputation.

However, pursuant to the provisions of Article 149 of the Criminal Code, the author of an insult (injuria) or defamation is not punishable if the imputation consists of a true statement and it has not been made out of a pure desire to offend or a spirit of malice. Nevertheless, the same article stipulates that the accused may only prove the truth of the imputation provided that: a) it is linked to the defense of a current public interest, and b) the complainant (querellante) requests the proof of the imputation directed against them, provided that such proof does not affect the rights or secrets of third parties.

This, in my view, is little known. In other jurisdictions, truth is indeed a widespread defense. Probably because of this, many clients who bring cases of this nature to us mistakenly believe they can make statements that injure the honor of others and that they will defend themselves by claiming it is a true statement. However, in Costa Rica, said defense is restricted to the specific cases outlined above.

Regarding public interest, it is important to clarify that something may generate interest in the public, but that does not mean it is of public interest. While the concept of public interest is fairly abstract, it is clear that something is of public interest because it benefits the community, the majority of people. Therefore, not just anything constitutes a public interest.

Additionally, for the truth defense exception (excepción de la verdad) to be admitted, it must necessarily be proven: a) that the public interest is current; b) that the defamatory statements correspond to a true fact and did not arise from a "pure desire to offend" or a "spirit of malice."

In light of the foregoing, although it is true that the author of defamation is not punishable if the imputation consists of a true statement, contrary to what many people believe, there are few cases in which the truth defense exception would be sustained in a judgment.