67. Secondly, the Court deems it pertinent to analyze whether the imposition of a criminal sanction, and its presumed effects, violated the right to freedom of expression of Carlos Baraona Bray. This analysis will be conducted in the following order: a) importance of freedom of thought and expression in a democratic society; b) importance of freedom of thought and expression on environmental matters in a democratic society; c) content of the right to freedom of expression; d) permissible restrictions on freedom of expression and the application of subsequent liability, and e) analysis of the specific case. The Court will first examine the alleged violation of the principle of legality and finally, it will analyze the alleged violations of the right to judicial protection. 68. In relation to the civil complaint filed against Mr. Baraona, the Court finds that neither the Commission nor the representatives presented substantive arguments or inferred any legal consequences from these facts; consequently, it will not rule on this matter in the merits of this case (supra para. 36). VIII-1 THE ALLEGED STATUS OF CARLOS BARAONA BRAY AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDER A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 69. The Commission pointed out that Mr. Baraona’s statements regarding Senator SP referred to the irregular actions of the senator and of certain authorities of the environmental sector in the clearing of properties where it was alleged that illegal logging of alerce trees, an ancient tree protected in the Chilean State, was being carried out (supra para. 50). Thus, the Commission characterized Mr. Baraona as an environmental defender. The representatives pointed out that Mr. Baraona had an early vocation as an environmental defense attorney and has in fact performed that role. For his part, during the public hearing in this case, the alleged victim stated that, at the time of the events, he was an environmental defense attorney and had been one until 2004; he clarified that he does not currently work as an environmental defense lawyer. On this matter, the State indicated that it has profound differences with the position of the Commission and the representatives regarding the assessment of the facts of the case and regarding Mr. Baraona, since “[they] have attempted to present him as an environmentalist,” while the correct interpretation is that Mr. Baraona “was a public employee until he later become a lawyer for a forestry company.” B. Considerations of the Court 70. The Court has considered that the status of a human rights defender derives from the work carried out, regardless of whether the person who does it is a private individual or a public official,79 or whether the defense is related to civil and political rights or economic, social, cultural and environmental rights.80 The Court has also stated that activities for the promotion and protection of rights may be carried out intermittently or occasionally, so that being a human rights defender is not necessarily a permanent condition.81 79 Cf. Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 122. 80 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 147 and 148, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 129. 81 Cf. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 129. 23