TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGISLATION PROVISIONS A. Right to freedom of thought and expression and the principle of legality A.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 84. The Commission pointed out that the State used criminal law to sanction a statement protected in principle by the right to freedom of expression, this being the most restrictive and severe instrument available to it. It also maintained that the statements made by the journalist Emilio Palacio Urrutia were related to a matter of public interest linked to the actions of the then President of the Republic, acting as an elected official. Additionally, it stated that the article published in the El Universo newspaper, under the title "NO to lies" was an opinion article, which reflected value judgments and not facts. It therefore argued that the conviction of first instance, confirmed in higher instances, which sentenced the victims for serious slanderous insult against authority and a prison sentence of 3 years, and imposed a total compensation of 40 million dollars, constituted a violation of the rights to freedom of thought and expression, and to the principle of legality and non-retroactivity, contained in articles 9 and 13 of the Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument to the detriment of Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and César Enrique Pérez Barriga. 85. The representatives argued that the crime of slanderous insult against authority openly characterizes as a crime and punishes statements against public officials, and therefore is contrary to Articles 13 and 2 of the American Convention. Similarly, they argued that the criminal proceedings against the alleged victims is in itself a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, since it generated a physical and psychological burden, and constituted an act of censorship. Regarding the criminal and civil conviction, they highlighted that they constituted disproportionate restrictions on the alleged victims’ right to freedom of expression. In this regard, they pointed out that the article “NO to lies” is an opinion piece by a journalist regarding a topic of public interest that should not be subject to criminal liability. In this regard, they argued that: a) the criminal proceeding is in itself a violation of Article 13 of the American Convention, and b) the criminal conviction violates the parameters related to “subsequent liability” established by the Inter-American System. 86. The State acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of Articles 9 and 13 of the American Convention (supra, par. 27). A.2. Considerations of the Court A.2.1. The importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society 87. The Court has established that freedom of expression, particularly in matters of public interest, "is a cornerstone upon which the very existence of a democratic society rests." 127 This right must not only be guaranteed with regard to the dissemination of information or ideas that are favorably received or considered harmless or indifferent, Compulsory Membership in an Association prescribed by law for the practice of journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, par. 70, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, par. 111. 127 31