35 relating to the functioning of the State or that affect general rights or interests or that may have significant consequences.143 111. The Court recognizes that information concerning labor questions is usually of general interest. First, there is a collective interest for the corresponding workers, and this has an even greater importance when it refers to relevant aspects, for example, in relation to a specific sector,144 and especially when the opinions refer to an organizational model of the State or its institutions in a democratic society.145 112. Regarding public interest, expert witness Damián Loreti stated during the hearing before the Court that: [On the one hand], when placing the analysis [… of public interest] in context, it is necessary to take into account the content of the opinion or publication, whether it contributes to the discussion or to the interests of labor union or worker activities. The means used, the social context, including the timeliness. The nature of the position of the employee, whether or not he is a representative. The type of company […], the content of the opinion or publication that contributes to the discussion or to the defense of interests; the means used. The context includes the timeliness, the nature, the position of the employee; in other words, if the opinion is given in defense of others or of the individual himself; the nature of the company, whether it is public or private; the way in which the criticism was expressed; whether it was spontaneous; what were the intentions; whether it was based on facts, and whether there have been previous actions by the employee and the employer that would justify the statements. [On the other hand], it is possible to systematize the cases in which the statements […] are not of public interest. [For example,] when they refer to or affect the product offered by the company; […] criticism of the quality of the service offered when there is no [general] interest that justifies this or it is not a public service […], or when someone’s private life is affected without this being justified […]; collaboration with the competition, breach of confidentiality […] of any kind. The existence of […] disparaging information that is not justified towards co-workers with better jobs, which alters the normal co-existence in the workplace, and when the statements are unnecessary and do not defend the interests of the workers, or are not based on facts […]. 113. The Court considers that, in principle, statements aimed at promoting the proper functioning and improvement of working conditions, or workers’ demands, represent, in themselves, a legitimate and coherent purpose within the framework of worker organizations. 146 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra, para. 51, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 61, and Case of Memolí v. Argentina, supra, paras. 145 and 146. 143 Cf. ECHR Case of Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GS], No. 28955/06, No. 28957, No. 28959/06; No. 28964/06. Judgment of September 12, 2011, para. 72. In this case, the European Court indicated that “it did not share the Government’s view that the content of the impugned articles did not concern any matter of general interest. The publication at issue took place in the context of a labour dispute inside the company to which the applicants had presented certain demands. The primary role of publications of this type ‘should be to deal with matters essentially relating to the defence and furtherance of the interests of the unions’ members in particular and with labour questions in general’ (see paragraph 24 above, in particular point 170 of the International Labour Office Digest cited therein). The debate was therefore not a purely private one; it was at least a matter of general interest for the workers of the company P. (see, mutatis mutandis, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], No. 29183/95, § 50, ECHR 1999-I, and Boldea v. Romania, No. 19997/02, § 57, 15 February 2007). 73. That being said, the existence of such a matter cannot justify the use of offensive cartoons or expressions, even in the context of labour relations (see paragraph 24 above, point 154 of the Digest cited therein). Moreover, the remarks did not constitute an instantaneous and ill-considered reaction, in the context of a rapid and spontaneous oral exchange, as is the case with verbal exaggeration. On the contrary, they were written assertions, published in a quite lucid manner and displayed publicly on the premises of the company P. (compare De Diego Nafría, cited above, § 41). ECHR, Case of Boldea v. Romania, No. 19997/62. Judgment of February 15, 2007). 144 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 166; Articles 3 and 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, supra. 145 Cf. ECHR. Case of Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GS], supra, paras. 56 and 61. In Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain, the European Court determined that the personal opinions of the members of the Executive Committee 146