49 American System. The classification and penalization of slander are not necessary in a democratic society; they are disproportionate and constitute an indirect means of restricting freedom of expression and information; d) The Court must establish specific standards that are consistent with the Convention as regards laws that restrict freedom of expression in the Americas; e) The “reduced penalization” proposed by the Commission limits the non-penalization assumptions to questions referring to public individuals in relation to matters of public interest and maintains the criminal classification of offenses against honor. Moreover, it suggests that an investigation must be initiated to determine whether a public individual or a matter of public interest is involved, which produces effects that harm freedom of expression. In this respect, despite the existence in Paraguay of a clear and precise clause ordering the judge not to penalize matters related to “public considerations,” according to Article 377, paragraph 3, of the former Penal Code, the judge of first instance convicted Mr. Canese; f) The need for subsequent imposition of liability required by the Convention is violated by the penalization of slander, because there are less restrictive means, such as civil sanctions and regulation of the right to rectification or reply, which can protect the honor of the individual. The legally protected attribute of honor that the Convention attempts to safeguard may be protected by less stigmatizing means than penal laws. By restricting democratic debate unnecessarily, the requirement of need is not observed; g) If it is determined that there has been an abuse in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression that violates the honor of a person, civil proceedings allow this to be fully and promptly compensated. The right to rectification or reply is embodied in Article 28 in fine of the Paraguayan Constitution, which “appears to suggest civil proceedings as the most appropriate way to protect the right to freedom of expression.” The Civil Code also allows reparation of the possible harm caused to the right to honor of an individual, as a result of inexact publications, considered slanderous or defamatory, by a pecuniary compensation for damages; h) The application of civil sanctions could also be an indirect means of restricting freedom of expression if certain essential elements are not fulfilled. These include: differentiation between matters that are of public interest and those that are not; differentiation between public and private individuals, and also distinction between statements of fact and value judgments, because the latter cannot be verified. Otherwise, civil sanctions can have an intimidating effect on the defendant in a civil case; i) The statements made by Mr. Canese occurred in the context of the public debate on matters of public interest that involved two presidential candidates. This is the kind of public debate that the Convention tries to encourage. Also, the restriction of information in an electoral context “has been classified as a specific form of electoral fraud;” j) “[E]ven if there had been some excess or lack of precision in [Mr. Canese’s] statements, if the language had been offensive, or if his opinions