where it was published. In this regard, by way of example, on July 19, 2011, the then President declared, in reference to the alleged victims, that “it is not only the hitman's fault, but also the person who hires him. In the case of ink hitmen, where the culprit is not only the hitman, but also those who hire him and allow those ink assassinations." 232 160. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers it proven that the criminal proceedings and the criminal conviction against Mr. Palacio Urrutia following the publication of the article “NO to lies,” and the circumstances surrounding said proceedings, which included a context of confrontation and conflict between the then President and the alleged victims and El Universo, caused Mr. Palacio Urrutia to resign from his job as a journalist at the newspaper where he worked. For the same reasons, the Court considers that Mr. Palacio Urrutia's possibilities for exercising the profession of journalist were affected after his resignation, due to his inability to obtain employment in Ecuador due to the chilling effect caused by the process against him and the need to leave the country to live in the United States of America (supra par. 149). Consequently, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to job stability to the detriment of Emilio Palacio Urrutia, in terms of Article 26 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 13, 22 and 1(1) of the same instrument. F. Conclusion 161. The Court recalls the subsequent liabilities for the exercise of freedom of expression must comply concurrently with the requirements developed by this Court in its case law, and that the opinion pieces referring to the conduct of public officials in the exercise of their duties enjoy special protection, therefore the criminal response by the State is contrary to the Convention (supra par. 120). In this case, the Court concludes that the article “NO to lies”, published by Mr. Palacio Urrutia regarding the events that occurred in Ecuador on September 30, 2010, constituted an opinion article that referred to a matter of public interest, so it enjoyed special protection in view of its importance in the democratic debate. Thus, the Court notes that the conviction of three years in prison constituted a violation of the right to freedom of expression of the victims in the case, and as a consequence Mr. Palacio Urrutia saw his voice silenced in the media outlet where he worked, being deprived of his job. Similarly, the Court warns that the pecuniary sanction imposed on the victims, and on El Universo newspaper, was disproportionate, and constituted an attack on the exercise of freedom of expression. 162. This Court also concludes that Mr. Palacio Urrutia was forced to leave Ecuador due to the insecurity and fear generated by the possibility of being subject to new proceedings and even of losing his life, which constituted a violation of his right of movement and residence and produced an indirect restriction on the exercise of his freedom of expression. Similarly, the Court concludes that the consequences of the criminal proceedings brought against the victims, and the circumstances surrounding it, had an impact on Mr. Palacio Urrutia's enjoyment of the right to job security, since he had to resign his position at El Universo, and was prevented from exercising his duties as a journalist in Ecuador. At this point, the Court recalls that the violation of the rights to movement and residence, and to job stability, is closely related to violation of freedom of expression, which is the driving force behind the different aspects analyzed in this process. 232 Cf. El Universo newspaper, Defensa de Correa apelará el fallo para insistir en $ 80 millones, (Correa’s defense will appeal the ruling to insist on $80 million) July 21, 2011. 53