do not, by any means, signify that the honor of public officials or public figures should not be legally protected, but that it should be protected in accordance with the principles of democratic pluralism […] A different threshold of protection should be applied, which is not based on the nature of the subject, but on the characteristic of public interest inherent in the activities or acts of a specific individual. Those individuals who have an influence on matters of public interest have laid themselves open voluntarily to a more intense public scrutiny and, consequently, in this domain, they are subject to a higher risk of being criticized, because their activities go beyond the private sphere and belong to the realm of public debate.”136 98. The IACHR observes that affected public servant was elected to hold a senior position in government, namely Congressman and President of the Venezuelan National Assembly; as such, his ability to clarify the information contained in Tulio Álvarez’s statements, rather than being merely theoretical, could have been exercised through multiple channels available to public officials in his position.137 To this extent, there were means other than the criminal law through which Representative Willian Lara could have defended his honor. Indeed, because the fact that money was missing became public knowledge, the National Treasury issued a statement “admitting that the Ministry of Finance was responsible for the delays in the payment of employer contributions to the National Assembly’s Workers’ and Retirees’ Savings Bank, since it had not received sufficient income because of the coup and the oil strike, [and acknowledging] the communication from the Office of the Superintendent of Savings Bank stating that it had not said that there was a misappropriation of funds attributable to the President of the National Assembly.”138 99. In its judgment of conviction, the Seventh Trial Court called the petitioner’s statements excessive, false, and malicious, because he had repeated them in the media days prior to the oral argument phase of the public defamation trial, even though he knew, because of his access to the record of the proceedings, that “what he was saying was not true”. 100. Given the seriousness of the legal interests at stake in a criminal defamation case brought by a public servant against a private citizen, freedom of expression must protect the right of the parties to express the ideas and information that in their opinion are relevant to the adjudication of their case, as well as the right of society to be informed about it. In this regard, it is reasonable for the petitioner to find the explanation provided by the National Treasury and other prosecution evidence to be unsatisfactory, and for him to want to publicly maintain the veracity of his allegations during the criminal case against him. In fact, as seen in the decisions rendered, the petitioner reported the acts in question to the competent authorities and requested that preliminary impeachment hearings be held against the congressman. He also invoked the defense of exceptio veritatis and presented evidence to prove his assertions. This request was later rejected by the judge. 101. These types of statements must also be understood as part of a broader debate on the obstacles that prevent effective corruption investigations from being carried out and the implications of using the criminal law against those who publicly denounce it. The congressman continued to have access to different means of participating in this debate. To this extent, the use of the criminal law and the conviction handed down in this case are clearly unnecessary in a democratic society and openly discourage the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and speech on matters of public interest in general. 102. Furthermore, the IACHR has asserted that in cases where legal liability is imposed against a person who has abused his right to freedom of expression, the party alleging harm is the one that must bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that the pertinent statements were false, and that they effectively caused the harm that is being invoked. Even if the exceptio veritatis should be a defense against any type of liability, it cannot be the only such defense; as long as the expressions under consideration are reasonable 136 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, paras. 128-129 I/A Court H.R., Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 122. 137 138 Annex 2. Seventh Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Judgment of Conviction in Case No.7-246-2004, Case File IV. February 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner received on September 7, 2006.