19 To challenge the compatibility of articles 146, 149 and 152 of the Costa Rican Criminal Code with Article 13 of the American Convention, an independent constitutional-law proceeding exists called acción de inconstitucionalidad. But in the case of a definitive ruling delivered by the Third Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court upholding a conviction, the acción de inconstitucionalidad cannot be used to challenge the law applied in the judgment delivered in the instant case, because in Costa Rica such actions are not permissible against specific court rulings. In Costa Rica, one can only challenge jurisprudence, which must consist of at least three similar cases. The right to privacy trumps freedom of information. However, the only circumstance when the right to privacy cannot be invoked to restrict freedom of information is when a public figure is involved and the public deeds of that public figure are at issue. Public officials are subject to public scrutiny and must show a greater degree of tolerance to criticism. In practice this means that the protection that public officials enjoy as regards privacy and reputation is not the same as the protection that a private citizen enjoys, as the citizenry must have complete and effective control over the manner in which public affairs are being conducted. There are two remedies to exact satisfaction for or put an end to defamation: the right to demand correction and the right of response provided for in the Convention; the other is civil suits to demand compensation for any offense. These means are sufficient to protect a public official’s honor. Under Article 48 of Costa Rica’s Constitution, human rights treaties have the same rank in law as the Constitution. Further, the Constitutional Chamber has held that if a provision of an international human rights convention better protects some fundamental right, that convention shall be applied in preference to the Constitution. The judgments that the Inter-American Court delivers are to be executed immediately within Costa Rica’s juridical system, through the Constitutional Chamber; its decisions trump any decision by a domestic court. d. Expert testimony of Héctor Faúndez Ledesma, attorney The European Court has held that freedom of expression protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed, and that there is little scope under Article 10 of the European Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest. Article 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter provides that freedom of expression and of the press are essential components of the exercise of democracy. This same principle is reflected in some of the earliest judgments of the United States Supreme Court. Lest there be any doubt or discrepancy as to the limits, content and scope of freedom of expression, those rulings hold that it is clear that it was conceived and designed to protect political expression, messages having a political content and those having to do with the free flow of ideas on matters of public interest or concern. Spain’s Constitutional Court has held that freedom of expression serves a constitutional purpose in a system of checks, balances and counterbalances,