information into question through their power to appeal to the public.”116 The Commission has established that “The sort of political debate encouraged by the right to free expression will inevitably generate some speech that is critical of, and even offensive to those who hold public office or are intimately involved in the formation of public policy."117 Because of that, the protection of honor or reputation must only be guaranteed through civil penalties in those cases in which the offended person is a public servant, public figure, or private citizen who has voluntarily become involved in matters of public interest,118 always bearing in mind the principles of democratic pluralism.119 In other words, the use of criminal mechanisms to punish speech on matters of public interest, and especially about public servants or politicians, violates Article 13 of the American Convention because there is no compelling social interest to justify it, it is unnecessary and disproportionate, and it may also constitute an indirect means of censorship given its intimidating and chilling effect on such speech.120 85. In that regard, the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression adopted by the IACHR in 2000 provides that, “Privacy laws should not inhibit or restrict investigation and dissemination of information of public interest. The protection of a person’s reputation should only be guaranteed through civil sanctions in those cases in which the person offended is a public official, a public person or a private person who has voluntarily become involved in matters of public interest. In addition, in these cases, it must be proven that in disseminating the news, the social communicator had the specific intent to inflict harm, was fully aware that false news was disseminated, or acted with gross negligence in efforts to determine the truth or falsity of such news.” 86. The European Court of Human Rights, for its part, has found the imposition of criminal penalties for speech about matters of public interest to be unnecessary and/or disproportionate, and therefore incompatible with the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention. Criminal sanctions are a measure of last resort, when there is a serious threat to the exercise of other human rights121. In the past decade, in addition to finding that the use of the criminal law was unnecessary and disproportionate in specific cases, the European Court has developed a general rule about the exceptional nature that criminal penalties should have when it comes to speech about matters of public interest122. In the opinion of the Court, the use of the criminal law to punish speech about issues of public interest will only be admissible in absolutely exceptional cases, in particular, in response to the dissemination of hate speech or 116 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, para. 83; 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. 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; 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. 115. 117 IACHR. 1994 Annual Report. Chapter V: Report on the Compatibility of “Desacato” Laws with the American Convention on Human Rights. Title III Section B. OEA/Ser. L/V/II.88. doc. 9 rev. February 17, 1995. 118 IACHR, Declaration of Principles on Freedom http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=26&lID=1. 119 of Expression, Principle 10, available at: I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 128. IACHR. Arguments before the Inter-American Court in the Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Reprinted in: I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 101.2); IACHR. Arguments before the Inter-American Court in the Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Reprinted in: I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 72.h). 120 121European Court of Human Rights, Gavrilovici v. Moldova, Application No. 25464/05 (2009), March 15, 2010, Para. 60. 122 See, e.g., European Court of Human Rights, Castells v. Spain. Application No. 11798/85. 23 April 1992; Dalban v. Romania. Application No. 28114/95. 28 September 1999; Şener v. Turkey. Application No. 26680/95. 18 July 2000; Halis v. Turkey. Application No. 30007/96. 11 January 2005; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan. Application No. 40984/07. 22 April 2010; Gutiérrez Suarez v. Spain. Application No. 16023/07. 1 June 2010.