case, 3 so that Mr. Baraona Bray was not only subjected to criminal proceedings, but was also criminally convicted, even though the sentence was suspended. 12. Another aspect of the instant case that differs from Moya Chacón is that the petitioner is not a journalist, but a lawyer and environmental advocate. The statements that led to his conviction were made in the exercise of these professions, as recognized in the judgment, 4 due to his technical and legal expertise in forestry matters, especially with regard to the alerce reserves. With regard to Mr. Baraona Bray’s status as an environmental defender, it is pertinent to cite an excerpt from his testimony at the public hearing held in this case on June 20, 2022: [T]hey were multidisciplinary groups, I worked with biologists, forestry engineers, we all tried to cooperate on this issue and we all had the spirit of protecting the environment. And we did it pro bono. We were in groups that included journalists who worked pro bono, they published press releases, they informed the community, so we were very involved with the community and we believed the story; the truth is, we wanted to believe that we were improving the world. 5 13. Taking into account the role played by the petitioner, it is important to highlight the fact that the Inter-American Court has placed the actions of environmental defenders on a par with those of human rights defenders, which means that the former enjoy the same protections as the latter. This position is in line with the precedent established in the case of Lhaka Honhat v. Argentina, according to which environmental rights are included in the realm of human rights. 6 This standard is also consistent with recent guidance from other international bodies. In this regard, it is worth recalling the landmark decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council in October 2021, which recognized the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right, 7 and which was subsequently confirmed by a UN General Assembly resolution adopted unanimously in July 2022. 8 14. These specific features of the case highlight the essential role of a truly pluralistic debate on issues of public interest for democratic societies. 15. As for understanding the meaning of “public interest” and the importance of ensuring discussion of such matters within the public arenas of dissent, we refer to the words of the expert witness Martín Prats at the public hearing held on June 20, 2022: In the Case of Moya Chacón v. Costa Rica, the victims were subject to civil and criminal proceedings due to a journalistic report that implicated police officers. The criminal action was dismissed, so that they were only convicted under civil law. Inter-American Court. Case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of May 23, 2022. Series C. No. 451. §82. 4 Judgment, §§70-80. 5 Statement of Carlos Baraona Bray before the Inter-American Court in public hearing of June 20, 2022. 6 Inter-American Court. Case of the Indigenous Communities Members of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Series C. No. 400. On previous occasions, even before it recognized the justiciability of environmental rights, the Court had already discussed the relationship between human rights and environmental rights. See the judgment in the case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador of 2008: “Moreover, this Court emphasizes, in relation to the deprivation of the right to property, that a legitimate or general interest based on the protection of the environment such as the one seen in this case, represents a cause of legitimate public utility” Inter-American Court. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C. No. 179. (§76). 7 UN Human Rights Council. Resolution A/HRC/RES/48/13, of October 8, 2021. available at: https://documentsdds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/289/53/PDF/G2128953.pdf?OpenElement 8 UN General Assembly. Resolution A/76/L.75, July 26, 2022. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3982508?ln=en 3