126. The Court also considers it relevant to emphasize that, in this case, the criminal proceedings, the consequent sentence imposed on the victims, as well as the pecuniary sanction, constituted an indirect means of restricting freedom of thought and expression. 189 In this regard, the Court notes that after being criminally convicted, Mr. Palacio Urrutia left his job at El Universo, and for a period he faced difficulties in working as a journalist (infra par. 157 and 158). 127. Given that, in light of the Convention, the dissemination of an opinion article on a matter of public interest referring to a public official cannot be considered criminally prohibited as a crime against honor, it can be concluded based on the foregoing and the acknowledgment of the State, as such conduct was sanctioned in this case, the sanction imposed contravened Article 13(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument. B. Right to personal freedom B.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 128. The representatives argued that the criminal prosecution itself had an impact on the presumed victims personal freedom, in a broad sense, notably the restrictions that every criminal proceeding imposes on victims. Thus, they argued that they suffered "the penalty of being in the dock", characterized by the restriction of freedom due to being subject to criminal proceedings, the need to be available to appear in said proceedings, the subsequent anguish of being deprived of their liberty as a consequence of the accusation presented by the then President, and the measures taken as a result of the persecution to which they were subjected, are subsumed in Article 7 of the Convention. In particular, the representatives argued, as constitutive elements of the violation of the right to personal liberty: a) the material illegality of the custodial sentence; and b) the arbitrariness in issuing a custodial measure to the detriment of the alleged victims, which was also carried out based on a misuse of power. 129. The State indicated that, in this case, there was no deprivation of liberty and therefore the protection provided by Article 7 of the Convention to persons deprived of liberty cannot be extended in a broad sense, as the Inter-American Court itself has established in its case law. Regarding the allegation of the so-called "penalty of being in the dock", the State indicated that the alleged victims faced a judicial process that, like any other, requires individuals to appear and participate in a process in its entirety, which cannot be considered as a violation of their right to personal liberty. The State argued that the custodial sentence was never carried out, therefore the existence of the conviction, although it was disproportionate, does not constitute a violation of personal liberty. The Commission did not make specific arguments related to the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty. B.2. Considerations of the Court 130. The Court holds that the essence of Article 7 of the American Convention is the protection of the liberty of the individual against any arbitrary or illegal interference by 189 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, par. 107. 43