careful to identify cases and circumstances in which the existence of a legal provision of a criminal nature, or the effective application of criminal measures in defense of honor, would be incompatible with the American Convention. 28. In the case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, in order to evaluate a possible violation of Article 13 in that specific case, the Inter-American Court divided its analysis into two parts: first, it classified the statements made by Mr. Álvarez as expressions of public interest, and only then did it analyze the subsequent criminal liability attributed to the petitioner. Then, to determine whether or not the content of the petitioner’s statements to the detriment of the former Venezuelan congressman were of public interest, the Inter-American Court invoked three different criteria or elements, namely: (i) the subjective element, in other words, whether the person whose honor was allegedly damaged was a public official, (ii) the functional element, that is, the person was acting in an official capacity at the time the facts and, finally, (iii) the material element, that is, the subject matter of the discussion was of public interest. 18 29. The subjective element is simpler to apply and allows for immediate identification, leaving little margin for discretion when defining whether or not a given individual was a public official at the time of the facts. The functional element, on the other hand, leaves some room for discretion, 19 as it requires a more in-depth analysis of the facts to determine whether the conduct in question is related to the functions of a particular office or whether it occurred in the private life of the public official. Finally, the material element presupposes a greater margin of interpretation, since there are no objective parameters for establishing whether or not a given issue is of public interest; in other words, the identification of what would be publicly relevant varies not only from one person to another, but also according to the temporal, social and geopolitical circumstances in which the case is inserted. 30. A few years later, with the judgment in the case Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, the Inter-American Court consolidated the jurisprudential advances achieved in Álvarez Ramos. In addition to adopting the criteria established therein to identify speech circumscribed in public debate, it also affirmed that the use of criminal laws to punish the dissemination of such expressions is not compatible with the Convention and highlighted the existence of less harsh alternatives and, therefore, of preferred use. 20 On that occasion, the Inter-American Court noted the chilling effect caused by the sanctions imposed on Mr. Palacio Urrutia and on the newspaper El Universo, which ultimately affected all media professionals linked to it. 21 31. From these valuable pieces of case law related to freedom of expression, it follows that, in the case of speech concerning matters of public interest, the provision and application of criminal measures aimed at subsequent liability would not be compatible with the American Convention. It is undeniable that the Court’s rich jurisprudence in this area has been a great achievement for the defense of freedom of expression, the result of an advanced and contemporary interpretation of Article 13 of the Convention, intended to offer a more favorable approach and a broader scope to the right to freedom of expression. 22 Inter-American Court. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C. No. 380. §§112-117. 19 Judgment, §128. 20 Inter-American Court. Case of Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C. No. 446. §§118-119. 21 Inter-American Court. Case of Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021, Series C. No. 446. §§123-124. 22 Inter-American Court. Case of Palacio Urrutia 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 C. Pérez Manrique, §32. 18