41 136. The representatives held that Mr. Tristán Donoso was sentenced to “a criminal punishment for the statements determined to be in violation of individual honor and dignity, without drawing a distinction based on the public interest nature of the criminal report filed [by him against Attorney General Sossa].” They indicated that “the State punished the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression”, i.e., an “essentially lawful act” and thus violated Article 9 of the American Convention in relation to the general obligation set forth in Article 1(1) of such treaty. 137. The State held that such argument by the representatives was legally untenable. The State indicated that “the conduct [of Mr. Tristán Donoso] in making a direct accusation at a press conference against the then Attorney General […], alleging the latter had committed a criminal act, fell under the crime definition contained in Sections 172 and 173(a) of the Penal Code,” did not run contrary to the legality principle. 138. As previously pointed out by the Court (supra para. 73), the alleged victim, his next of kin or his representatives may claim under rights different from those mentioned in the application by the Commission, on the basis of the facts described therein. 139. However, when examining the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the Court declared that the conduct for which Mr. Tristán Donoso was accused and the pertaining punishment for it were both described by a criminal statute in force at the time of the facts (supra para. 117). Declaring a violation of the American Convention to have taken place in the course of enforcing such statute in a specific case does not imply in and of itself that the legality principle has been infringed, for which reason the Court considers that the State did not violate the right enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention. IX ARTICLES 8 (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL)121 AND 25(1) (RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION)122, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS), OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 140. The Court will examine the arguments put forth by the parties regarding the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, as follows: 1) regarding the proceedings for the crime of abusing authority and infringing the duties of public officials against the former Attorney General; and 2) regarding the Court proceedings for crimes against honor instituted against Mr. Tristán Donoso. 121 Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “[e]very person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 122 Article 25(1) of the Convention sets forth that: “[e]veryone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent Court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.”