46 f) Examination of the case leads to the conclusion that a subsequent imposition of liability has been applied to Mr. Canese’s statements that is incompatible with the Convention. The complaint against the alleged victim was filed by the CONEMPA partners, even though they were not mentioned individually in the statements made by Ricardo Canese. “[W]ithin the context of the treaty[,] an action for the offense of slander and injuria can never be filed, if the attribute that these offenses are intended to protect has not been clearly harmed;” g) Article 13 of the Convention prohibits restricting freedom of expression by indirect methods or means. The punitive measures resulting from certain statements could, in some cases, be considered an indirect means of restricting freedom of expression. The inhibiting effect of the punitive measure can generate self-censorship in the individual who wishes to speak out, which produces almost the same effect as direct censorship: “opinions do not circulate.” Such cases are limited to statements on matters of public interest; h) The criminal categories of libel, injuria and slander are intended to protect rights guaranteed by the Convention. The legally protected attribute of honor is embodied in Article 11 of the Convention; thus, it cannot be asserted that the criminal categories of libel and injuria violate the Convention. However, in cases where the punitive measure sought involves matters of public interest or political statements in the context of an electoral campaign, the right embodied in Article 13 of the Convention is violated, because there is no imperative social interest that justifies the punitive measure, or because the restriction is disproportionate or constitutes an indirect restriction. It should be established that statements made in the context of matters of public interest, such as an electoral campaign, are not punishable. In such cases, civil proceedings can be instituted, provided that the standard of actual malice is satisfied; in other words, it is necessary to prove that, by disseminating the information, the author intended to cause harm or knew full well that he was disseminating false information. A punitive measure resulting from statements of public interest is incompatible with the provisions of Article 13(3) of the Convention. There are other less restrictive means by which individuals involved in matters of public interest may defend their reputations from unfounded attacks; i) The statements disseminated by Mr. Canese referred to a matter of public interest, because they took place in the context of an electoral campaign, with regard to a candidate to the presidency of the Republic, who was a public person, and to a matter of public interest. “The sentence imposed on Mr. Canese[,] as a result of the proceedings filed against him by the partners of CONEMPA[,] sought to have an intimidating effect on any debate involving public persons on matters of public interest, and became an indirect means of restricting freedom of expression;” j) The partners of CONEMPA have voluntarily become involved in matters of public interest, such as their activities with the Itaipú project; k) The sanction imposed on Mr. Canese for the statements made in the context of an electoral campaign represented an “unnecessary” means of restricting his freedom of expression. Moreover, “the protection of the