conditions in which they can freely develop their function.94 This is particularly important if one takes into account the interdependence and indivisibility between human rights and environmental protection95 and the difficulties associated with the defense of the environment in the countries of the region, where there are a growing number of reports of threats, acts of violence and murders of environmentalists because of their work.96 80. With regard to the State’s contention that Mr. Baraona is not a defender of the environment, but rather that he was a public official who later became the lawyer for a forestry company and defended its private interests, it should be recalled that the status of human rights defender should be understood in a broad and flexible manner due to the nature of the activities related to the promotion and protection of rights (supra para. 71). In this sense, the Court considers that the defense of human rights is not incompatible with the position of a public official or with the practice of law in the private sphere. In this case, the Court notes that at the time of the facts, Mr. Baraona had experience as a government official in the protection of the alerce tree and had participated in several judicial appeals related to the defense of the environment and had even carried out environmental protection work on a voluntary basis (supra para. 53). In this particular case, regardless of his role as a human rights defender, the Court finds that Mr. Baraona’s statements made reference to the illegal logging of alerce trees, an issue related to environmental protection, which constituted a debate of public interest at the time of the facts (infra para. 118). VIII-2 FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS AND THE DUTY TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW ESTABLISHED IN THE CONVENTION97 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 81. The Commission reiterated that the instant case concerns a restriction on freedom of expression for the alleged crime of serious insults, which ended in criminal sanctions against the lawyer Carlos Baraona, and that this situation arose in the context of a public debate in Chile over the illegal logging of alerce trees and irregularities by the public authorities of the environmental sector. The debate was related to a topic of public interest, focusing on the protection of the environment. 82. It argued that, under the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Convention, all restrictions on freedom of expression, in order to be legitimate, must satisfy a strict tripartite test. It held that, although the rules on insults were previously established by law, the ambiguity and breadth of Articles 416 and 417, subparagraphs 3 to 5, of the Criminal Code, imply a breach of the requirement of strict legality in placing restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression of Carlos Baraona Bray.98 It noted that the crime of “serious insults” for which the 94 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 77, and Case of Digna Ochoa and Family v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 99. 95 Cf. Environment and Human Rights (State obligations in relation to the environment within the framework of the protection and guarantee of the rights to life and personal integrity– interpretation and scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC23/17 of November 15, 2017. Series A No. 23, para. 54. 96 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra, para. 149. 97 Articles 13(1) and 13(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 98 The Commission considered that the articles used against Mr. Baraona are incompatible with the principle of strict criminal legality and the right to freedom of expression, since no clear parameters were established to anticipate the prohibited conduct and its elements. 26