37. In fact, this effect is prior to -and, to a certain extent, independent of - the actual initiation of a criminal proceeding, and stems from the mere possibility of being embroiled in a criminal offense as a result of the existence of a legal provision that establishes possible subsequent liabilities for abuses in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. 38. However, as mentioned previously, the Inter-American Court’s case law has been structured to create, a priori, hypotheses in which the existence and application of criminal measures would be contrary to the Convention. This development is crystalized in the judgment in the Baraona Bray v. Chile case and is the qualitative leap made by the Inter-American Court, which will be analyzed in greater detail in the next chapter. 39. Certainly, the a priori creation of hypotheses is a recurring jurisdictional practice, which has great value in different scenarios and makes it possible to address a wide range of human rights violations. However, when specifically addressing the guarantee of freedom of expression, it must be borne in mind that the mere normative provision of criminal liability may inhibit the legitimate exercise of this right. Thus, the option of delegating to the judges the task of defining a posteriori whether or not a given conduct – because it concerns matters of public interestwould fall under the hypothesis of prohibition of criminal measures is insufficient to ensure the full enjoyment of freedom of expression, thereby becoming a less effective approach for dealing with cases such as the present one. 40. In the classification proposed by Winfried Hassemer, concepts such as “public interest” are among those requiring complementary assessment by the judge, giving him a greater margin of semantic freedom and, furthermore, mitigating the predictability of his decision. In circumstances in which the restrictive element of freedom of expression lies in the exercise of the criminal jurisdictional function itself, the predictability of the decision-making process becomes indispensable to guarantee the rights of the accused. It is, therefore, precisely from the ability to better delimit the interpretative framework of the Judiciary that the significance of the decision issued by the Inter-American Court derives, as will be explained below. IV. The inapplicability of criminal measures to protect the honor of public officials 41. In order to sufficiently minimize the chilling effect -and, therefore, effectively safeguard freedom of expression - it is essential to carry out an immediate analysis of the applicability, or not, of criminal measures in defense of honor. This is because the a priori exclusion of criminal ius puniendi to promote the defense of honor in certain cases prevents individuals from feeling intimidated, inhibited or dissuaded from contributing to public debate by being constantly subject to the possibility – albeit theoretical - of incurring criminal liability or even being subject to criminal prosecution. 42. Mr. Baraona Bray’s statement at the public hearing aptly summarizes the democratic risk that criminal prosecution entails for public debate, since it produces silencing effects that extend beyond the individuals who are directly prosecuted. On that occasion, the victim acknowledged that not only he, but also other lawyers and environmental defenders had remained silent after his conviction. 26 Statement of Carlos Baraona Bray before the Court at the public hearing on June 20, 2022: “I admire them, but they have also silenced a part of their inner being, they never again - if you review the press in Chile- they never again participated in any complaint, in any act of environmental protection in the face of abuse from both the State and the private sector, because the private sector can also abuse the environment. And so, many other lawyers, many other people that I know, and I myself kept silent.” 26