100. The Commission will also determine whether the penalty of dismissal imposed on Mr. Nissen Pessolani for exercising the right to freedom of expression is legitimate under the above-described terms of the American Convention. 101. The legal provision contained in Article 14 subparagraph (n) of Law No. 1084, used to sanction Mr. Nissen Pessolani, establishes that a prosecutor can be removed from office for “[giving] information or [issuing] statements or comments to…third parties about the trials they are handling, when they might affect their processing, or affect the honor or reputation or the presumption of innocence established in the National Constitution; or [sustaining] polemics about ongoing trials.” The Commission considers that the way this is worded is excessively vague and ambiguous, which runs contrary to the principle of legality. The legal provision does not establish clear parameters that would explain what should be understood concerning the type and content of the information, statements, or comments provided to the press or third parties, or what might be meant by polemics about ongoing trials. In this regard, it has the practical effect of abolishing the prosecutor’s right to express opinions about all matters he is investigating. 102. The Commission understands that the cited legal provision lacks the level of specificity required for regulations that establish limitations and does not make it possible to observe a proper balance between prosecutors’ right to expression and the duty to exercise the discretion and prudence necessary to protect the independence and impartiality of their office. 103. The Commission further observes that this prohibition on expression, expressed in broad and general terms, has a direct impact on the work of prosecutors who are handling investigations related to acts of corruption, as well as on the right and the duty to inform society, through the press, about the nature of the cases they are handling. 104. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the ambiguity and broad scope of the grounds for removal contemplated in Article 14 subparagraph (n) of Law No. 1084 and applied in the case at hand implies a failure to comply with the requirement of strict legality in the imposition of restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression of Mr. Nissen Pessolani in his capacity as public prosecutor. 105. Along the same lines, the Commission underscores that the scant legal reasoning provided in the sanction decision does not lay out an argument that would enable verification that the restriction on freedom of expression was based on a legitimate purpose and that it was suitable, necessary, and strictly proportional to the end being sought. The IACHR considers that a sanction brought against a public prosecutor for exercising the right to freedom of expression required the Jury for the Prosecution of Magistrates, at the very least, to provide a thorough analysis of the restriction and sufficient and proper grounds, aspects that are not seen in the disciplinary ruling. Therefore, the Commission considers that an arbitrary restriction to the exercise of freedom of expression was imposed, through the imposition of a subsequent liability that did not comply with the requirements established in the Convention. 106. In light of the foregoing considerations, the IACHR concludes that the Paraguayan State violated the right to reasoned decisions, the principle of legality, and the right to freedom of expression established in Articles 8(1), 9, 13(1), and 13(2) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Alejandro Nissen Pessolani. 5. The right to appeal the judgment to a higher court83 and the right to judicial protection84 Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention establishes “the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.” Article 25(1) of the Convention provides the following: “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 83 84 20