43. Finally, both the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 27 and petitioner’s representatives 28 advocated before the Inter-American Court for amendment of Chile’s criminal legislation on crimes against honor when offender is a public official or authority. The former requested the repeal of criminal offenses of defamation, libel and slander, while the latter requested decriminalization of all three criminal offenses. 29 the the the the the 44. This progressive displacement of the legal protection of honor from the criminal sphere to other spheres has increasingly gained ground at the international level. By way of illustration, consider Argentina which only imposes a fine for the offense of false attribution of a crime 30 and does not impose a prison sentence for insult. In fact, the Argentine legal system has promoted the true decriminalization of crimes against honor, and went even further by declaring that statements on matters of public interest shall in no case constitute a crime against honor. 31 Similarly, in 2009, Uruguay exempted from criminal liability those who criticize or make statements against public officials. 32 That same year, the United Kingdom decriminalized defamation and other honor crimes through the Coroners and Justice Act, 33 following the common law tradition already adopted by the United States, whereby offenses against honor– known as libel, slander and defamation– are not criminalized at the federal level. 45. Such objective solutions are preferable because they modulate the chilling effect to its minimum level, so that it can no longer weaken the institution of freedom of expression. 46. As the Inter-American Court acknowledges in paragraphs 129 and 130 of the judgment, establishing the absolute inapplicability of criminal measures when their purpose is subsequent liability for statements involving public officials – except in situations where they are falsely accused of a crime - is an alternative that satisfactorily safeguards the right to freedom of expression, since it would reduce the chilling effect from the first moment in which it could begin to affect the enjoyment of this right and thus weaken and impoverish public debate. 47. However, this is only possible when the analysis of the (in)applicability of criminal law is based on clear and objective criteria that reduce the judge’s margin of interpretation and that can be easily analyzed to eliminate fear of a criminal punishment that could preemptively silence voices and opinions. Merits Report (evidence file, folio 35). Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (evidence file, folio 108). 29 The expert witness Martín Prats, offered by the petitioner’s representatives, presented a report that addressed, among other questions, the drawbacks of using criminal law to settle conflicts on freedom of expression and establish subsequent criminal liabilities. In this context, he declared himself in favor of the decriminalization of crimes against honor. Expert opinion of Martin Prats at the public hearing before the Court on June 20, 2022. 30 Cf. Article 109 of the Criminal Code of Argentina – “The slander or false accusation of a specific natural person of the commission of a specific and circumstantial crime that gives rise to public action, will be punished with a fine of three thousand pesos ($ 3.000.-) to thirty thousand pesos ($ 30.000. -). In no case will expressions referring to matters of public interest or those that are not assertive constitute the crime of slander.” 31 Cf. Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of Argentina supra, and Art. 110 of the Criminal Code of Argentina - In no case will expressions referring to matters of public interest or those that are not assertive constitute the crime of slander. Neither will the qualifying words harmful to honor constitute a crime of insults when they are related to a matter of public interest. 32 Cf. Law 18.515, of July 15, 2009, Art 4 of which amended Art. 336 of the Uruguayan Criminal Code, to the following wording: “ARTICLE 336. (Exemption from liability and proof of the truth). - The following shall be exempt from liability: A) anyone who makes or disseminates any kind of statement on matters of public interest, referring both to public officials and to persons who, by reason of their profession or trade, have a social exposure of relevance, or to any person who has voluntarily become involved in matters of public interest (...).” 33 Article 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act: “Abolition of common law libel offences: The following offenses under the common law of England, Wales and the common law of Northern Ireland are abolished: (a) the offenses of sedition and seditious libel; (b) the offense of defamatory libel; (c) the offense of obscene libel.” 27 28