During this period there were no serious events affecting press freedom. On June 4, 2001, a Law of Freedom of Opinion and Information and Journalistic Practice was enacted. During the debate over the law, provisions protecting a person's private or family life were removed by mistake. The provisions established conditions under which the media could report on these matters as long as they are of undeniable social importance. The elimination of these provisions, which were contained in Article 22 of the revoked Law of Abuses in Publication, leave investigative journalists under the restrictive framework of Article 161 of the Criminal Code. When the government was informed of the serious step backward this situation would cause in press freedom, it made a commitment to sponsor a bill to reinstate the regulations for nine months, during which time it would introduce new legislation covering protection of individuals' privacy. However, the government has made no progress in preparing the bill as it had said it would. On December 13, 2001, journalist Paula Affani was acquitted after the enactment of Law 19/733 concerning Freedom of Opinion and Information and Journalistic Practice, following the repeal of Law 16.643, Abuses in Publication. Affani had published articles about a controversial drug trafficking case in the newspapers La Hora and La Tercera from June 19 to 22, 1998. The trial was intended to find out how Affani had obtained access to sources in a secret legal proceeding. The State Defense Council, which brought the case, also made an individual charge against the journalist. On January 4, Juan Pablo Illanes was notified of a complaint filed by Clara Szczaransji, president of the State Defense Council concerning an editorial published in El Mercurio of Santiago on November 28, 2001. The complaint named Illanes and others who might be considered responsible as authors or accomplices before or after the fact. The editorial, which is not libelous, expresses opinions critical of Szczaransji, backed up by a long series of facts published in all the media, including two actions by the Supreme Court. The complainant, however, analyzed the text and said there were at least 13 implicit libelous concepts that formed the basis of her complaint. It was accepted by the 33rd Criminal Court in Santiago, which, at Szczaransji's request, summoned various members of the editorial board of El Mercurio. After IAPA protested the complaint, Szczaransji accused the newspaper of turning to international professional organizations for support and of having described her as using the legal term "contempt" as a basis for her criminal complaint.