(fair comment), liability cannot be imposed for expressions on matters of current public interest139. In the instant case, the IACHR observes that the exceptio veritatis was the only defense available and was later ruled unfounded without sufficient explanation. The judge based his decision on the fact that once the new Venezuelan Organic Code of Criminal Procedure took effect, the criminal justice system changed from an inquisitorial to an adversarial system, and stated that, “This judge cannot invade the sphere of action of another State body to rule on whether certain acts constitute a crime, knowing that the investigation lies with the Public Ministry. This follows from the judgment handed down by the Plenary of the Supreme Court, in which it ordered that a certified copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Public Ministry in order for it to investigate whether there were irregularities pertaining to the insurance policies covering the Assembly’s employees. Therefore, this court cannot issue any decision whatsoever on whether the acts constitute a crime, although this does not preclude it from observing that every piece of evidence offered, admitted, and examined led to the conclusion that the act attributed to the defendant […] [was] not proven to be true.”140 103. Finally, regarding the proportionality of the sanction imposed, the IACHR is of the opinion that the consequences of the criminal case—the precautionary measure barring the petitioner from leaving the country, the evidentiary system to which he was subjected, the latent risk of a potential loss of liberty and the suspended sentence of two years and three months in prison, the disqualification from exercising all political rights, the consequences of a criminal conviction on the petitioner’s professional life, and the stigmatizing effect of the criminal conviction—all demonstrate that the subsequent liability imposed against Tulio Álvarez for the exercise of freedom of expression were extremely severe in view of the fact that all of these consequences stem from the dissemination of information of public interest, related to the activity of an employee of the State. 104. The IACHR finds no justification for opening a criminal case, or for the resulting imposition of a prison sentence and other penalties in case such as this one, dealing with criticism of a high-ranking public official in the context of a legitimate debate on a matter of public interest. These types of matters in no way warrant the imposition of criminal responsibility that carries a prison sentence, the prohibition of foreign travel, and the disqualification from exercising political rights. These penalties, by their very nature, inevitably have an intimidating effect that is incompatible with Article 13 of the American Convention. 105. In weighing the satisfaction of the right to honor against the severity of the penalty imposed,141 the IACHR finds that the infringement of the petitioner’s freedom of expression through the use of the criminal law in this matter was also manifestly disproportionate because it was excessive. 106. In view of the above, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State violated Articles 9 and 13 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations contained in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Tulio Álvarez. B. Right to Participate in Government (Article 23 of the Convention) and Right to Judicial Protection (Article 25), in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention 107. The petitioner alleged that by imposing the penalty of political disqualification, his conviction also disproportionately affected the exercise of his political rights. The Commission has repeatedly referred to political rights as those that recognize and protect the right and the duty of all citizens to participate in their country’s political life. They are essentially rights that help strengthen democracy and political pluralism,142 and it is impossible to fully guarantee human rights without the effective and unrestricted recognition of political rights. 139 IACHR. Annual Report 2009. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (InterAmerican Framework on Freedom of Expression). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 51. December 30, 2009. Para. 109. 140Annex 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. 141 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, paras. 85. 142 IACHR, Annual Report 2008, Chapter IV, Venezuela, para. 336.