of freedom of expression the democratic [system] is weakened and there is a breakdown of pluralism and tolerance; the mechanisms of control and complaint that citizens have may become inoperable and, indeed, a fertile ground is created for authoritarian systems to take root.”70 90. One of the principal functions of freedom of expression is to facilitate and make it possible for individuals and social actors of various kinds to exercise social oversight of government and other powers that be. As the IACHR has stated, “freedom of expression is one of the most effective ways to denounce corruption,”71 and it enables citizens to participate not only in making decisions that affect them but also in the oversight of government.72 The exercise of freedom of expression therefore plays a fundamental role for investigating and reporting corruption; hence, the State’s duty to create “an environment free from intimidation for the exercise of freedom of expression by those who investigate, report and denounce acts of corruption.”73 91. The Commission has noted that judicial officers who conduct such proceedings are attacked by their authorities or their peers with verbal insults and threats, the use of special judicial proceedings (antejuicios), and the filing of complaints. These acts are used as instruments of control and intimidation as the judicial officers pursue their work, especially those who participate in high-impact corruption cases or cases in which major economic interests are at stake.74 92. Along the same lines, the IACHR considers that, as public officials, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders enjoy a right to freedom of expression that is quite broad, as this right is necessary to explain to society, for example, certain aspects of national interest and relevance. Specifically, prosecutors in charge of investigating alleged acts of corruption have the right and the duty to inform society, through the press, about the nature of the investigations they are handling and the implications these could have for society and the State as a whole. However, this right is subject to special restrictions related to the guarantees that justice operators must provide in the cases assigned to them.75 93. In this context, the Commission has established that States have the obligation to protect justice operators and to create adequate conditions for them to be able to carry out their work of investigating and punishing acts of corruption, guaranteeing their security.76 94. The IACHR has also stated that the legitimate protection of the principles of independence and impartiality for justice operators cannot be premised on the notion that an authority must remain silent on all matters of public relevance. Rather, for prosecutors as well as judges, any restrictions must strike a proper balance between the right to expression and the duty to exercise the discretion and prudence necessary to protect the independence and impartiality of their office. 77 In a 2002 joint declaration, the rapporteurs for freedom of expression of the UN, the IACHR, and the OSCE stated that “judges’ right to freedom of expression [also applicable to prosecutors], and to comment on matters of public concern, should be subject only to such narrow and limited restrictions as are necessary to protect their independence and impartiality.”78 I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29, American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985, Series A No. 5., para 70; Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, para. 165; and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of March 13, 2018, Series C No. 352, para. 174. 71 IACHR, Annual Report 2008, Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Chapter III, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.134 Doc. 5 rev. 1., February 25, 2009, para. 34. 72 IACHR, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, A Hemispheric Agenda for the Defense of Freedom of Expression, OEA/Ser.L/v/II/CIDH/RELE/INF.4/09, February 25, 2009, para. 54. 73 IACHR, Corruption and Human Rights: Inter-American Standards, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., December 6, 2019, para. 185. 74 IACHR, Corruption and Human Rights: Inter-American Standards, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., December 6, 2019, para. 403. 75 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators: Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, para. 172. 76 IACHR, Corruption and Human Rights: Inter-American Standards, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., December 6, 2019, para. 408. 77 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, paras. 157 and 163. IACHR, Report No. 21/18, Case 12.955, Merits, Daniel Urrutia Laubreaux, Chile, February 24, 2018, para. 88. 78 Joint Declaration by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, 2002. 70 18