37 control by citizens regarding the way they discharge their duties (supra para. 115). This different honor protection standard is justified by the fact that public officials voluntarily expose themselves to control by society, which results in a greater risk of having their honor affected and also the possibility – given their status – of having greater social influence and easy access to the media to provide explanations or to account for any events in which they take part. The instant case involves a person that held one of the highest public offices in his country, the Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General]. 123. Likewise, as it already has been held by the Court the Judiciary must take into account the context in which the statements involving matters of public interest are made; the judge shall “assess the respect of the rights and reputations of others in relation to the value in a democratic society of open debate regarding matters of public interest or concern.”110 124. The Court observes that the expression by Mr. Tristán Donoso did not amount to an opinion but to a statement of facts. While opinions cannot be declared true or false, statements of facts can. In principle, a true statement regarding a fact in a case involving a public official in relation to a matter of public interest is an expression protected under the American Convention. However, the situation is different when factual inaccuracy is present in the statement that allegedly causes damage to honor. In the instant case, during the press conference, Mr. Tristán Donoso referred to two legally relevant facts; a) the former Attorney General had disclosed to third parties a private telephone conversation a true fact that was even admitted by such public official and which, as mentioned above, amounts to a violation of privacy (supra para. 83); and b) the unauthorized recording of a telephone conversation that led Mr. Tristán Donoso to initiate criminal proceedings which were later unsuccessful in proving that the former Attorney General had taken part in the crime alleged (supra paras. 49 and 61). 125. In the instant case, the Court realizes that, at the time Mr. Tristán Donoso called the press conference, there were various and important information and assessment elements allowing to consider that his statement was not groundless regarding the responsibility of the former Attorney General for the recording of the conversation, to wit: a) at the time of the events, such officer was the only person legally empowered to order telephone wiretappings, which were carried out without any control, neither by a Court nor otherwise, a situation which had prompted a warning by the President of the Supreme Court (supra para. 100); b) the former Attorney General had in his possession the tape on which the private telephone conversation was recorded; c) a copy of the tape and a transcription of its content was forwarded to the authorities of the Catholic Church from his offices; d) the recording of the private conversation was played at his office to the authorities of the Colegio Nacional de Abogados [National Bar Association of Attorneys]; e) Mr. Tristán Donoso sent a letter and tried to meet with the former Attorney General to give and receive explanations regarding the recording of the conversation; however, the latter did not answer the letter and refused to meet with the alleged victim; f) the person with whom Mr. Tristán Donoso was holding the conversation denied having made the recording as alleged -even upon rendering a deposition under oath in the course of the proceedings against the former Attorney General; and g) Mr. Tristán Donoso had no part in the inquiry into the extortion of the Zayed family, wherein signs revealing the private origin of the recording appeared. Prosecutor Prado, in charge of the 110 Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 100, para. 105.