35 113. Given the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, the State should not only minimize restrictions to circulation of information but also balance, as much as possible, participation by various sources information in public debate, thus promoting information pluralism. Consequently, fairness must rule the flow of information.104 114. The American Convention guarantees this right to every individual, irrespective of any other consideration; so, such guarantee should not be limited to a given profession or group of individuals. Freedom of expression is an essential element of the freedom of the press, although they are not synonymous and exercise of the first does not condition exercise of the second. The instant case involves a lawyer who claims protection under Article 13 of the Convention. 115. Lastly, as regards the right to honor, the Court recalls that any expression regarding the suitability of an individual for holding public office or regarding the acts performed by public officials in the course of their duties enjoy greater protection, thus fostering democratic debate.105 The Court has indicated that in a democratic society, public officials are more exposed to scrutiny and criticism by the general public. This different protection threshold is justified by the fact that public officials have voluntarily exposed themselves to a stricter scrutiny. Their activities go beyond their private life and expand to enter the arena of public debate. Such threshold is not based on the quality of the individual, but rather on the public interest attending the activities the officer performs.106 3) Restrictions to freedom of expression and assessment of subsequent liability in the instant case 116. Based on the foregoing considerations and the allegations made by the parties, the Court will examine if the subsequent liability measure applied in the instant case met the aforementioned requirements of being enacted by statute, of serving a legitimate purpose and of being adequate, necessary and commensurate. Statutory standing of the measure 117. The Court observes that the crime of false accusation for which the victim was sentenced was enacted in Section 172 of the Penal Code; which is statute, both in the formal sense as a legislative act and in a substantive sense as a general written legal rule (supra para. 108). Legitimate purpose and adequacy of the measure 104 The Court has indicated that “[…] plurality of media, the prohibition of any type of monopolistic practice in relation thereto, is a necessary requirement.” Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Articles 13 and 29 of the American Convention of Human Rights), supra note 44, para. 34; See also, mutatis mutandi: Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 78, para 57. 105 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 79, para. 128; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 100, para 98; and Case of Kimel, supra note 78, para. 86. 106 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 79, para. 129; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 100, para. 103, and Case of Kimel, supra note 78, para. 86.