the Convention and did not provide effective judicial protection of the alleged victim’s right to freedom of expression. Therefore, the State also violated Article 25(1) of the Convention. 144. Although the representatives asked the Court to declare the violation of Article 25(1) of the American Convention, they did not put forward specific arguments in this regard and did not cite this article in their petition. 145. The State reiterated its preliminary objection regarding the alleged serious infringement of its right of defense. It indicated that it has complied with its international obligations regarding the right to judicial protection, established in Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. It pointed out that the dismissal of an action filed before the domestic courts does not necessarily imply a violation of the right to judicial protection. It considered that the appeal for annulment filed by Mr. Baraona was a suitable mechanism in the Chilean criminal procedural system to invalidate the oral trial and the sentence when there is a substantial infringement of constitutional rights or guarantees related to the formalities of the trial or to the facts that had been considered proven, allowing for a review of the limits to the assessment of the evidence imposed by the rules of sound judgment. 146. It further argued that in this case the Supreme Court “responded to Mr. Carlos Baraona’s objections to the first instance judgment on the alleged infringement of freedom of expression, by referring to the inadmissibility of the exceptio veritatis […] The judgment of the Supreme Court demonstrates that it took into account the arguments of the parties, ruled on the conflict of rights, and also gave reasons for its decision by rejecting the appellant's arguments.” It also argued that the Supreme Court weighed the right to freedom of expression against the rights of third parties. Therefore, the alleged victim had the appropriate means to defend himself in the criminal proceedings, thus safeguarding the balance afforded by the domestic legal system to protect both rights. In addition, the State considered that the Supreme Court’s alleged failure to exercise control of conventionality was inadmissible, because there is no express international obligation in the American Convention, or in any other treaty ratified by Chile, that requires the domestic courts to apply the Inter-American Court’s interpretation in cases other than those in which the State has been convicted. The State reiterated that the aforementioned argument regarding control of conventionality is inadmissible for temporal reasons. It also alleged that the Commission confuses freedom of opinion with freedom of information. Thus, it made an error in stating that the information provided by Mr. Carlos Baraona regarding the alleged improper actions of former Senator SP, particularly, the discussion of the illegal logging of the alerce tree in Chile, need not be truthful. Therefore, it argued that freedom of opinion does not require that the statements or expressions be truthful; however, in the case of freedom of information, at least a certain burden of veracity or plausibility is applicable. B. Considerations of the Court 147. Article 25(1) of the Convention requires that all persons under the jurisdiction of the State be guaranteed an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights.167 Such effectiveness presupposes that, in addition to the formal existence of remedies, the latter provide results or responses to the violations of rights established either in the Convention, the Constitution or in the laws.168 This means that the remedy must be suitable Cf. Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438. para. 170, and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 116. 168 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24, and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 116. 167 43