related to matters of public interest because they were “made based on actual facts that truly constituted an irregular administration of public property,” and the fact that it was private individuals who administered that property “in no way decreased the genuine interest of the Association in knowing whether the said property was being administered appropriately.” In addition, it underscored that “the statements of Messrs. Mémoli [related] to the possible perpetration of an offense in the administration of public property [and] was not without grounds,” so that “the sentences that were imposed on them were not necessary in a democratic society.” According to the Commission, “even if the statements of Messrs. Mémoli had not referred to the administration of public property, they should be characterized as of public interest,” because they involved “the possible defrauding” of “the inhabitants of San Andrés de Giles” with funds dedicated to the burial of their family members, which “affects social property,” so that “it may be a matter of legitimate general interest” and should be subject to public discussion. In addition, the Commission emphasized “the good faith of those who made the allegations.” Therefore, in the Commission’s opinion, “the subsequent imposition of liability on them was disproportionate.” 115. The representatives “endorsed” the Commission’s arguments with regard to this violation. In addition, they stressed that Carlos Mémoli had been given a suspended sentence of one month’s imprisonment for a “two-second comment” made in a radio program and “another comment in an administrative file,” while Pablo Mémoli “used the radio to explain [why] the matter of burial niches was a serious irregularity committed in relation to the municipal public cemetery.” They indicated that “the newspaper La Libertad conducted an investigation,” during which it published some articles on the topic, “which had to be sufficiently convincing and vehement, with the result that “two years later, the ‘purchasers’ [were given] […] certificates of contributions [in which] their financial collaboration to the builder of the burial niches was ‘acknowledged.’” They explained that the Mémoli’s allegations were of public interest, because “[e]every country, town and area has its own interests, issues and concerns.” According to the representatives, the public interest “refers to any event or act involving a public or private individual that can cause danger or harm to the rest of the collectivity, in either the political, economic, social, environmental, religious or any other type of activity.” They indicated that the allegations concerned public interest because “the municipal cemetery is the final resting place of all human beings and it was known that irregularities had been committed in this area”; also that “[d]eath is a topic of profound public interest owing to the idiosyncrasies of our people.” They argued that “the system to eliminate independent media […] is similar to, although more subtle, [than the practices of previous Argentine governments because] it uses justice itself to intimidate and/or annihilate a communication medium.” They explained that the Italian Association “[r]ectified its [legal] situation following [their] allegations.” The representatives also indicated that, owing to their allegations, “INAM urged the Mutual, […] to rectify [its] situation” and some “private individuals who had been harmed appeared [before] the courts because they felt they had been defrauded,” so that this is not a “simple issue between private individuals, as the State says.” They emphasized that “La Libertad denounced a chain of responsibilities that included public officials who looked the other way, and did not exclude them,” so that the newspaper “fulfilled its social role of examining and investigating, [and] […] discovered the truth.” 116. The State argued that the Commission had “failed to justify [this] violation with a specific and direct account of the facts of the case, but had merely provided a theoretical description of the right to freedom of expression.” It stressed that, “by excluding the offense of defamation from statements relating to matters of public interest, [this Court presumably considered that] the relevant Argentine laws were in keeping with the standards for freedom of expression established in the Convention.” However, it indicated that, contrary to the Kimel case, in this matter public interest was not involved, so that the conviction for defamation was “absolutely compatible with the right to freedom of expression and does not constitute an 47