also underscored the fact that the existence of penalties of imprisonment in relation to freedom of expression has a “clear” and “inevitable” chilling effect on the exercise of that right, and discourages investigative journalists from reporting on general matters of public interest.130 89. The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, for its part, has affirmed that “freedom of expression in a democratic society must be the subject of a lesser degree of interference when it occurs in the context of public debate relating to public figures”. It has reiterated that “people who assume highly visible public roles must necessarily face a higher degree of criticism than private citizens; otherwise public debate may be stifled altogether”131. In its decision on the case Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso, the African Court deemed contrary to requirements of article 9 of the Charter, the fact that a custodial sentence was imposed against the editor-in-chief of a weekly newspaper for writing and publishing an article exposing “the counterfeiting and laundering of fake bank notes” by authorities of the judiciary132. It affirmed that “apart from serious and very exceptional circumstances for example, incitement to international crimes, public incitement to hatred, discrimination or violence or threats against a person or a group of people, because of specific criteria such as race, colour, religion or nationality, the Court is of the view that the violations of laws on freedom of speech and the press cannot be sanctioned by custodial sentences”.133 90. In its General Comment 34 Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, the UN Human Rights Committee asserted that “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It is impermissible for a State party to indict a person for criminal defamation but then not to proceed to trial expeditiously – such a practice has a chilling effect that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person concerned and others”.134 91. The case at hand concerns a prison sentence imposed in the context of political speech of clear public interest, specifically, about the way in which a public servant manages State funds and the public duties for which he is responsible. Moreover, as explained below, the State has failed to demonstrate that the requirements of necessity and strict proportionality have been met with respect to the measure imposed. 92. The IACHR notes that the statements made by the petitioner were both an opinion and an assertion of facts. In the article that he published, Tulio Álvarez first stated that the situation of the benefits and other rights of Venezuelan public sector employees was “a crime of the largest magnitude.” As the inter-American case law has held, opinions like these are not subject to veracity tests or penalties of any kind.135 93. In addition, the IACHR observes that the alleged victim next asserted two facts as an example of the situation he reported that: a) during the term of Congressman Willian Laras’—against whom a request for preliminary impeachment proceedings filed by employees and retirees of the institution is pending before the Plenary of the Supreme Court—two billion bolívares from the employees’ Savings Bank was used to cover [… continuation] as, for example, in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence (see Bingöl v. Turkey, No. 36141/04, § 41, 22 June 2010, and, mutatis mutandis, Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 115, ECHR 2004-XI).” 130 European Court of Human Rights, Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, Application No. 33348/96. 17 December 2004, paras. 113-114; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan. Application No. 40984/07. 22 April 2010, para. 102. 131 African Court on Human Rights and Peoples´ Rights. In the Matter of Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso. Application No. 004/2013. Judgment December 5, 2014. Para. 155. 132 African Court on Human Rights and Peoples´ Rights. In the Matter of Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso. Application No. 004/2013. Judgment December 5, 2014. Para. 164. 133 African Court on Human Rights and Peoples´ Rights. In the Matter of Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso. Application No. 004/2013. Judgment December 5, 2014. Para. 165. 134 United Nations. Human Rights Committee. General Comment Nº 34: Article 19 Freedoms of opinion and expression. September 12, 2011. Para. 47. 135 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, paras. 86-88.