Speeches that can be understood to be of public interest are those about which society, by being aware of them and being informed about them, can better defend its rights, and also encourage democratic debate about them. Criminalizing opinions, information, and ideas that may somehow involve this type of interest inhibits democratic discussion, inhibits the person who wants to express it, so that, for fear of being subject to criminal liability he remains silent, inhibits himself, and does not act. But this also affects the rest of society, which, seeing how a person was held criminally liable for speaking out on certain issues, also refuses to do so. Therefore, failure to protect speech of public interest may lead to a general impairment of the quality of democracy in a country. 16. With regard to statements and comments made in the context of activities in defense of the environment, imbued with the highest level of public interest, the Inter-American Court has once again recognized that expressions related to this objective should enjoy greater protection, with a view to fostering democratic debate. 9 17. However, the judgment handed down in the present case breaks new ground by going beyond the standards currently in force in the inter-American sphere regarding the use of criminal law to safeguard honor at the expense of freedom of expression, particularly where statements concerning matters of public interest are at stake. 18. Its contribution lies in establishing truly objective criteria that make it possible to immediately rule out the use of criminal measures in situations involving the protection of the honor of public officials against the imputation of offenses or offensive acts. 10 As the Inter-American Court has recognized since 2004 with the judgment in the case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, the chilling effect of criminal law is a significant limitation to the exercise of freedom of expression. 11 19. In this regard, the inhibiting or intimidating effect – also known as the chilling effect 12 –is observed not only when there is a conviction, but also when there is the mere possibility of prosecution owing to the existence of a criminal offense in the domestic legislation, which worsens as the criminal proceeding progresses. 20. It is therefore imperative to minimize, as far as possible, the chilling effect in these cases, thus ensuring proper protection of the right to freedom of expression, which is fundamental for the democratic rule of law. As stated in the judgment in the present case, the protection of honor through criminal measures is not in keeping with the Convention when matters of public interest are at stake. 13 21. To this end, it is essential to define objective criteria that allow for the immediate elimination of the applicability of criminal measures when seeking to establish subsequent liability for statements on issues of public interest, in order to prevent them from being used to discourage the free exercise of the right to freedom of Judgment, §108. Judgment, §§129-131. 11 Inter-American Court. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C. No. 107. §133. 12 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. Concurring opinion of Judge Rodrigo Mudrovitsch, §4. 13 Judgment, §115. 9 10