The opinions expressed by Mr. Kimel can neither be deemed to be true nor false. As such, an opinion cannot be subjected to sanctions, even more so where it is a value judgment on the actions of a public official in the performance of his duties. In principle, truthfulness or falseness may only be established in respect of facts. Hence, the evidence regarding value judgments may not be examined according to truthfulness requirements. 29 28. In addition, various instances have recognized the highest level of protection for speech related to issues of public interest, and in particular that referring to criticism directed at public officials. In the case of Lingens v. Austria, the European Court noted that politicians must show greater tolerance for media criticism, noting that “in these cases, the requirements of such protection must be weighed against the interests of a open debate on political questions”. 30 In Memére v. France, it established that certain remarks by the petitioner, which strongly criticized the actions of a public official in a television debate, were political expressions that therefore enjoyed a high level of protection, which implied a narrow margin of appreciation for the imposition of a sanction by the French authorities. 31 29. Similarly, the UN Human Rights Committee has stated that “the communication of information and ideas on public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential. This implies a free press and other media capable of commenting on public affairs without censorship or restriction and of informing public opinion”. 32 In this regard, in short, it is essential to point out that the existence of an open and plural public debate requires safeguards for criticism of public officials, which in turn requires special protection for journalists and the media, and the recognition that political actors often have access to the media to respond to the criticism they are subjected to. The asymmetry between the position of the citizen, or the journalist, and the ruler justifies the special protection for speech in the public interest. 33 30. On the other hand, in the States’ domestic sphere, it is possible to observe that, although defamation continues to be criminalized in the codes, and this criminalization is not per se incompatible with international law, there is a trend towards the decriminalization of this behavior. As indicated by the expert witness Toby Mendel before the Court, countries such as Ghana, Estonia, Jamaica, Mexico and Zimbabwe have suppressed this type of regulation. 34 For its part, in the inter-American sphere, the American Declaration on Freedom of Expression, adopted by the Inter-American Commission, has indicated that the protection of reputation "should be guaranteed only through civil sanctions, in cases in which the person offended is an official or public or private person who has been voluntarily involved in a matter of public interest. 35 31. The UN Human Rights Committee has reached a similar conclusion, and in this sense it has maintained that “the States parties should consider the possibility of decriminalizing 29 par. 93. Case of Kimel Vs. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177., 30 Cf. ECHR. Lingens v. Austria, July 8, 1986, par. 43. 31 Cf. ECHR, Mamére v. France, November 7, 2006. 32 Cf. Human rights Committee, General Comments 25, UNDoc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add/7 (1996), par. 25. Cf. ECHR, Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, November 15, 2011, par. 54.; Tusalp v. Turkey, February 21, 2012, par. 44, and Thoma v. Luxembourg, March 29, 2001. 33 34 Cf. Report of Toby Mendel, par. 61. 35 Adopted in the 108th Ordinary Session of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, October 19, 2000. 9