132. Finally, this Court notes that the Chilean legislation in force at the time of the facts did not establish an exception to the application of the crimes of libel and slander in the case of speech of public interest, in accordance with the standards developed in this judgment. Furthermore, Article 29 of Law No. 19.733, cited in the domestic judgment as the basis for Mr. Baraona’s criminal liability (supra para. 59), stated that unless the speech was specialized commentary or criticism on political, literary, historical, artistic, scientific, technical and sports issues, the exercise of freedom of expression could be punished in matters of public interest, which is contrary to the Convention. For this reason, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Baraona Bray. B.6. Conclusion 133. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to freedom of thought and expression enshrined in Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Baraona Bray. VIII-3 LACK OF LEGALITY IN THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS ESTABLISHED IN THE CONVENTION160 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 134. Regarding the incompatibility of the criminal offenses charged in this case with the Convention, the Commission argued that under the principle of strict criminal legality (Article 9 of the Convention), the law applied in the instant case did not establish clear parameters that would make it possible to determine the prohibited conduct and its elements. It pointed out that Article 416 of the Criminal Code refers to any expression or action that dishonors, discredits or disparages - a definition that does not establish a clear and unequivocal boundary to decide when it is lawful or not lawful to publicly denounce facts of public interest or issue a critical opinion about a State authority. In this sense, it argued that the vagueness of the rule paves the way for the use of criminal law to create an intimidating environment that inhibits discourse and debate on issues of public interest. It also noted that Article 417 establishes abstract criteria, even leaving it to the discretion of the individual who considers himself offended, or to public opinion; and refers to criteria that can only be defined by the judge ex post facto and is does not serve to guide the conduct of individuals, faced with the serious consequence of being deprived of personal liberty. Thus, it concluded that the State violated the right to freedom of expression and failed to comply with the requirements of strict legality in breach of Articles 13(1), 13(2) and 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 135. The representatives referred to the Chilean legislation that contains the criminal definitions of insults and slander of which Mr. Baraona Bray was accused.161 They pointed out that Mr. Baraona Bray was not convicted of the crime of slander (Article 412 of the Criminal Code), because in this specific case the conditions of the criminal offense were not met, and Article 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The crime of insult is defined in the Chilean Criminal Code in Articles 416 to 420. The crime of slander is defined in Articles 412 to 415, while the crime of slander with publicity is defined in Article 413. Article 417 specifically addresses the crime of serious insults. Articles 421 to 431, contain provisions common to both criminal definitions. 160 161 40