36 118. The Court has pointed out that public officials, in as much the same manner as any other individual, enjoy the protection of the provisions of Article 11 of the Convention, which enshrines the right to honor. Moreover, Article 13(2)(a) of the Convention sets forth that the “reputations of others” may be grounds to impose subsequent liability for such an exercise of freedom of expression as attains them. Likewise, the incrimination instrument is adequate since it is aimed at safeguarding – through the penalties established – the interest that it is meant to protect; i.e. it could be suitable to contribute to attaining such end.107 Need for the measure 119. In a democratic society punitive power is exercised only to the extent that is strictly necessary in order to safeguard essential legally protected interests from the more serious attacks serious attacks which may impair or endanger them. The opposite would result in the abusive exercise of the punitive power of the State.108 120. The Court does not deem any criminal sanction regarding the right to inform or give one’s opinion to be contrary to the provisions of the Convention; however, this possibility should be carefully analyzed, pondering the extreme seriousness of the conduct of the individual who expressed the opinion, his actual malice, the characteristics of the unfair damage caused, and other information which shows the absolute necessity to resort to criminal proceedings as an exception. At all stages the burden of proof must fall on the party who brings the criminal proceedings.109 121. In its constant case law, the Court has repeatedly upheld the protection of freedom of expression regarding opinions and statements on matters of which society has a legitimate interest to be informed, in order to be aware of anything that bears on the performance of the State or impacts on general interests or rights, or of anything having significant consequences (supra para. 115). For the Court, the manner in which a high ranking public official – such as the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] – exercises his or her statutory powers, in this case, the wiretapping of telephone conversations and the manner in which domestic rules and regulations are abided by in therefore doing, is a matter of public interest. It is against the background of the series of challenges publicly made against the former Attorney General by various State authorities, such as the Ombudsman and the President of the Supreme Court, regarding his actions in connection with telephone wiretapping, that the alleged victim stated in a press conference that such public official had tape recorded a telephone conversation and had disclosed such recording to the Junta Directiva del Colegio Nacional de Abogados [National Bar Association Governing Board] (supra paras. 95 to 100). The Court considers that Mr. Tristán Donoso made statements regarding events that had the greatest public interest in a context of intense public debate regarding the powers of the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General] to wiretap and record telephone conversations, a debate in which Court authorities, among others, were involved. 122. As indicated above, it is established in international law that the threshold for protection the honor of public officials to be protected should allow for the broadest 107 Cf. Case of Kimel, supra note 78, para. 71. 108 Cf. Case of Kimel, supra note 78, para. 76. 109 Cf. Case of Kimel, supra note 78, para. 78.