45 the Court from hearing a case concerning alleged violations of the American Convention that has already been filed, such as this one, which was brought before the Inter-American System in July 1998.113 Consequently, the Court cannot consider the said decisions by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay in August and December 2002 to be a factor that obliges it to discontinue the hearing on the alleged violations of the American Convention, which allegedly occurred before they were issued. VIII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION) Arguments of the Commission 72. Regarding Article 13 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: a) Article 13 of the Convention establishes clearly the limits to freedom of expression, which must be exceptional. Moreover, without detriment to the express prohibition of any kind of prior censure, Article 13 also establishes the imposition of subsequent liability. The imposition of this liability is exceptional: among other factors, it must be established by law and be necessary to ensure respect for the rights or reputations of others; b) “Free discussion and political debate are essential for consolidating democracy in society.” Given the urgent social interest surrounding “this type of debate,” the justifications for the State to restrict freedom of expression in this context are much stricter and more limited, because the right to freedom of expression and information is one of society’s principal mechanisms for exercising democratic control of those responsible for matters of public interest; c) “The right to freedom of expression is precisely the right of the individual and of the whole community to take part in active, concrete and challenging debates on all aspects of the normal, harmonious functioning of society.” These debates can often be critical of and even offensive to those who exercise public positions or who are involved in formulating public policy; d) Freedom of expression is one of the most effective ways of denouncing corruption. Moreover, the rule should be that alleged acts of corruption are publicized; e) If the subsequent imposition of liability, applied to a specific case, is disproportionate and not adapted to the interests of justice, it gives rise to a clear violation of Article 13(2) of the American Convention. In this case, the subsequent imposition of liability is unnecessary, since there was no clear harm to reputations, since the complainants were not named personally. The State did not prove that the requirement that the reputations of others should be protected was fulfilled; 113 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 2, para. 75; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paras. 130 to 141.