55. In response, the Chilean State argued that the criminal offense of serious insult does not lead to indiscriminate criminal proceedings that inhibit the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Moreover, only a small proportion of these cases end in a conviction and, even when they do, the penalties imposed are “minor” and in no case are custodial sentences imposed on account of the suspension of the sentence. 44 In this regard, we believe it is necessary to make some observations on the response given by the Chilean State. 56. First, even if a conviction only occurs in a minority of cases, it means that there are still cases in which it does occur. The fact that such cases are supposedly in a minority does not only not mean that they are few, but also does not diminish the alarming nature of the situation, being sufficient to create a chilling effect and thus silence voices, impoverishing public debate in a democratic society. 57. Secondly, it is important to emphasize once again that the mere possibility of prosecution – due to the existence of a provision that criminalizes conduct that impugns the honor of others - is sufficient to cause a chilling effect. 58. Thirdly, the use of criminal prosecution further increases the chilling effect that weakens freedom of expression, especially in the context of crimes against honor, which are usually prosecuted through private lawsuits by the offended party, which is both troubling and problematic. Given that the mere filing of a criminal complaint is sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings, it is far easier to use the force of the criminal justice system to discourage criticism, whistleblowing and the disclosure of information of relevance to public opinion. 59. In this regard, it is important to recall the concern expressed by the InterAmerican Court –including through the judgment in this case- about the fact that public officials often resort to the courts to file lawsuits for crimes of slander or libel in order to silence or suppress criticism of their actions in the public arena, by means of the so-called “SLAPP proceedings” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). 45 60. The strategy of a SLAPP lawsuit is to burden the defendants with litigation costs so high that they desist, cease or retract their speech, producing an effect of selfcensorship. 46 Thus, legislative measures that prevent or limit the access of public officials to the courts as spaces to silence their critics also provide excellent opportunities for States to review their procedural mechanisms in order to adopt anti-SLAPP provisions. 47 61. Finally, with respect to crimes against honor, even if a possible custodial sentence is suspended, the individual will continue to have the status of a convicted criminal, and may have other rights restricted. In this regard, we would like to emphasize some excerpts from the petitioner’s statements during public hearing held on June 20, 2022: 48 Answering brief (evidence file, folios 204-207). Inter-American Court. Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C. No. 446. §95. 46 Inter-American Court. Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C. No. 446. Concurring opinion of Judges Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot and Ricardo Pérez Manrique, §14. 47 Inter-American Court. Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C. No. 446. Concurring opinion of Judges Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot and Ricardo Pérez Manrique, §22. 48 Statement of Carlos Baraona Bray before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing of June 20, 2022. 44 45