83. In this case, the restriction on freedom of expression was applied through a criminal penalty. According to the consistent decisions of the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court, the criminal law is the most restrictive and severe means of establishing liability for unlawful conduct, particularly when penalties of incarceration are imposed.108 Therefore, the use of criminal proceedings must adhere to the principle of minimal intervention, given the ultima ratio nature of criminal law. In a democratic society, punitive power may be exercised only to the extent strictly necessary to protect fundamental legal interests from the most serious attacks that harm or jeopardize them. To do otherwise would lead to the abusive and unnecessary exercise of the punitive power of the State.109 Accordingly, the Commission must use particular caution in examining the necessity of invoking the criminal law to impose subsequent liability for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, taking account of “the extreme seriousness of the conduct of the individual who expressed the opinion, his actual malice, the characteristics of the unfair damage caused, and other information which shows the absolute necessity to resort to criminal proceedings as an exception.”110 84. As stated earlier, the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court have consistently held that the test for the necessity of limitations to freedom of expression should be applied more strictly to political speech and speech concerning matters of public interest,111 as well as to speech about public servants and candidates to public office.112 Democratic oversight through public opinion encourages transparency in government activities and promotes the responsibility of public servants in the performance of their duties. As such, there should be less room for any restriction of political speech or speech concerning matters of public interest.113 There must be greater tolerance for statements and assessments made by citizens in the exercise of that democratic oversight.114 Persons who discharge such public duties in a democratic society must have a higher threshold of tolerance for criticism,115 since “they have exposed themselves voluntarily to heightened scrutiny, and because they have an enormous capacity to call 108 IACHR, Report No. 82/10, Case 12.524, Merits, Jorge Fontevecchia and Hector d’Amico, Argentina, July 13, 2010, para. 99; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 155; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, para. 127; I/A Court H.R.. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 73; I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 76; I/A Court H.R.. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 104; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 79. 109 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 73. 110 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 78. 111 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, paras. 57 & 87; I/A Court H.R., Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, paras. 84, 86 and 87; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 83; I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 127. 112 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 86; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 82. 113 IACHR, Report No. 82/10, Case 12.524, Merits, Jorge Fontevecchia and Hector d’Amico, Argentina, July 13, 2010, para. 99; Cfr. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 155; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, para. 127. 114 IACHR, Report No. 82/10, Case 12.524, Merits, Jorge Fontevecchia and Hector d’Amico, Argentina, July 13, 2010, para. 99; Cfr. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 155; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, para. 127; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 83, and Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 87; Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 87. 115 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, paras. 86-88; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paras. 83-84; I/A Court H.R., Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 69; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paras. 152 & 155; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 83; I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, paras. 125-129; I/A Court H.R., Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 87.