29 standards set forth in Article 13(2) of the American Convention; d) “[i]n the judgment rendered on appeal No.” 40 of April 1, 2005, the Second Court of Justice […] imposed [upon Mr. Tristán Donoso] the minimum punishment established in Section 173(a) of the Penal Code ─ imprisonment for 18 months ─ and in that same judgment, such penalty was replaced by a pecuniary penalty[,] something which constitutes a very minor punishment, considering the seriousness of the crime committed.” The State insisted that objectively accusing an individual of a criminal act is not included in the concept of criticism Article 13 of the Convention protects; and e) as regards the need for other means of protection of honor alleged by the Commission and the representatives, it pointed out that “in Panamá, it is completely useless and ineffective to provide for a means of reparation that is merely civil in nature as a way of compensation for an illegal damage, given the prevailing cultural trend […] to avoid compliance therewith through mechanisms such as self-seizure and concealment of property.” * * * 93. The arguments submitted by the parties have evidenced once again before the Court the conflict between the right to freedom of expression on matters of public interest and the protection of the right of public officials to honor and reputation. The Court recognizes that the right to freedom of expression and the right to have personal honor respected are both enshrined in the American Convention, and are of the utmost importance, wherefore both rights must be protected and should coexist in harmony. La Corte deems that, as ensuring the exercise of both rights is imperative, the solution to such collision requires examining each case in accordance with its specific characteristics and circumstances.78 94. As in prior cases, the Court will not examine whether the statements made by the alleged victim at the press conference amounted to a specific crime pursuant to Panamanian statute,79 but whether in the instant case, upon imposing a criminal punishment on Mr. Tristán Donoso and the consequences thereof, among which the additional pecuniary compensation, the amount of which is pending determination, the State has violated or restricted the right enshrined in Article 13 of the Convention. Based upon the above, the Court will: 1) start the examination of the instant case by analyzing the determination of the events which have been proven; 2) secondly, it will briefly consider the contents of the right to freedom of thought and expression and, 3) it will examine whether criminal punishment amounts to a restriction to freedom of thought and expression which is allowed or not. * * * 1) Proven facts 78 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008, Series C No. 177, para. 51. 79 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C. No. 107, para. 106