to the highly respectable opinion of the majority, I believe that the weighting of values in this case is relatively simple. IV.2.c. The weighting of values in the case 124. Focusing now on the problem posed specifically by the brief for which the alleged victims were prosecuted, the first thing that is obvious is that it does not refer to any common act of administration, such as a tender or the granting of some benefit or preference to someone, but to the involvement of no less than the head of the executive in an attempted coup that led to his kidnapping or deprivation of liberty by the armed rebel police and during which there were fatalities. 125. This Court has argued finely and with notable and wise majority and dissenting opinions in cases such as Mémoli v. Argentina 34, where the public interest in the correct allocation of niches in a cemetery was discussed, but the mere factual statement of the event that gave rise to the brief that concerns us now, shows that we are facing an event and a context that cannot even remotely be compared with the public relevance of that and other cases. 126. Regardless of whether or not an attempt was actually made against the life of the constitutional president in those circumstances, there is no doubt that he was in danger, since there were shots and deaths, in a confused situation in which no sensible person would have considered himself safe and much less happy to have taken part. 127. There is little doubt that it was an episode of very particular institutional gravity and high risk to the personal integrity and life of the president and others, since this was an armed uprising against the institutional stability of the country. 128. I note that, in the written account of the facts, the Commission underestimated the episode as a self-proclaimed coup d'état, although in the footnote it cannot deny that it was a true coup attempt, recognized as such by the Permanent Council of the OAS. Although it is not recorded in that brief, at the time it also motivated reports from the UN and concern from European and American governments. 129. In his article, the journalist delegitimized the intervention of the executive to stop the coup, accusing it of committing a crime that he described as a crime against humanity, but on which he does not offer any evidence. 130. The current opposition leader was not a simple citizen, but the constitutional and democratically elected President of the Republic, who personally intervened to dismantle an attempted coup d'état, during which he was deprived of liberty for about six hours and his own life was in danger, that is to say that the article delegitimized as much as possible the conduct of the head of the executive power who had just intervened to stop a coup d'état in defense of the constitutional continuity of the rule of law. 131. The article not only charges him with a very specific crime, but even makes him responsible for his kidnapping, since it also attributes reckless and careless conduct. 132. It is worth insisting on this because it is central to the legal assessment of the case: faced with an attempted coup d'etat and the kidnapping of the constitutional 34 I/A Court HR., Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, Judgment of August 22, 2013, Preliminary Exceptions Merits, Reparations and Costs. Series C No. 265. 20