functions. However, in such cases, this protection must be weighed against the public interest in openly discussing political matters. 40 53. It is worth citing an excerpt from another ECHR decision on the precedence of the right to freedom of expression over the honor of public officials, this time in the well-known case of Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal: 41 As to the limits of permissible criticism, they are wider with regard to a politician acting in his public capacity than in relation to a private individual. A politician inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large, and he must display a greater degree of tolerance, especially when he himself makes public statements that are susceptible to criticism. He is certainly entitled to have his reputation protected, even when he is not acting in his private capacity, but the requirements of that protection have to be weighed against the interests of open discussion of political issues, since exceptions to freedom of expression must be interpreted narrowly. 42 54. It should be noted that the petitioner’s representatives alleged that the Chilean State has repeatedly used criminal offenses against honor to punish political criticism, opinions and accusations against public figures – and even mentioned some cases in this regard. 43 Using a similar reasoning, the ECHR reached the same conclusion in the case of another Austrian journalist who made harsh criticisms and accusations against political agents. In one of his criticisms, the journalist used the direct insult of "idiot" (Trottel). In this case, the Court clarified that insults cannot be read out of context, which in this instance involved political criticism of a public matter involving controversial statements by the offended party. Cf. ECHR. Oberschlick v. Austria. Nº 11662/85. Judgment of May 23, 1991; Oberschlick v. Austria. Nº 20834/92. Judgment of July 1, 1997. In the same vein, the ECHR ruled in the case of a citizen who insulted the then President Sarkozy of France, and was convicted for the specific crime of ‘insulting the President of the Republic’, art. 26, of the Law of July 29, 1881 on Freedom of the Press. Repeating the line of reasoning used in previous cases, the ECHR in addition ruled that imposing a criminal penalty for such conduct (the individual had insulted the President with the phrase “Casse toi pov’con” something like “Get lost, you sad prick”) could have a chilling effect on satirical forms of expression, which can play a very important role in the free discussion of questions of public interest, an essential feature of a democratic society. Cf. ECHR. EON v. France. No. 26118/10. Judgment of March 15, 2013. 41 ECHR. Case of Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal. No. 37698/9. Judgment of September 29, 2000. See also MOTA, Francisco T. da. Or, Tribunal dos Direitos do Homem and a Liberdade of Expressão: Os casos portugueses, Coimbra Editora: Coimbra, 2009, p. 40 sbsq; (critically, from the methodological perspective). COSTA, José de Faria. A informação, a honra, a crítica and a pós-modernidade (ou os equilíbrios instáveis do nosso desassossego), Revista Portuguesa of Ciência Criminal, 11 (2001), p. 131 and sbsq. 42 Similarly, Baciagalupo affirms that the right to freedom of expression shall prevail when the expression or information is aimed at participation in the formation of public opinion. BACIGALUPO, Enrique. Delitos contra el honor. Madrid: Hamurabi, 2006. p. 48. 43 Convictions: Raúl Quintana with Javier Rebolledo, Eighth Court of Guarantee of Santiago, RUC N° 18100189913, RIT N°3187-2018 (2018); the citizen with Miodrag Marinovic,”3° Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N°1310027365-3, RIT N°6389-2013 (2013); Gaspar Rivas with Andrónico Luksic, Eighth Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N°1610015512-9, RIT N°3799-2016 (2016); “Gonzalo Cornejo with Daniel Jadue, Fourth Trial Court in Criminal Matters. RUC N 1710019007-9, RIT N°599-2017 (2017); Fidel Meléndez with Claudio Pucher, Guarantee Court of Licantén. RUC N°1610017451-4, RIT N°272-2016 (2016). Acquittals: Andrés and Adolfo Zaldivar with Marcel Claude”, Court of Appeals of Santiago. No. 62.720-2002 (2002); Pedro Sabat with Danae Mlynarz, Eighth Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N°0810010361-4, RIT N° 4093-2008 (2008); Rodolfo Carter with Marcela Abedrapo, Fourteenth Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N° 1710025106-k, RIT N°4581-2017 (2017); Raúl Quintana with Javier Rebolledo Eighth Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N° 1810018991-3, RIT N° 3187-2018 (2018). Dismissals: Ramón Galleguillos Castillo et al. v. Hugo Gutiérrez Galvez, Court of Guarantee of Iquique. RUC N° 1310013817-9, RIT N° 5629-2013 (2013); Franco Parisi with Evelyn Matthei, Eighth Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N° 1310033640-k, RIT N° 9913-2013 (2013); Michelle Bachelet with Revista Qué Pasa RUC N° 1610019481-7, RIT N° 6028-2016 (2016); Sebastián Dávalos with Tomás Mosciatti Eighth Court of Guarantee of Santiago. RUC N° 1310012252-3, RIT N°3787-2013 (2013). Information withdrawn from the Pleading and Motions Brief, Evidence file, folios. 103-104 40