6. With regard to the domestic legal framework under which Messrs. Moya Chacón and Parrales Chaves were prosecuted, this relates to the offense of libel established in article 7 of the Printing Act in relation to Article 145 of the Criminal Code, and also the offense of defamation established in article 146 of the said Criminal Code. Regarding the latter, it is relevant to underline that the Inter-American Court considered that this article was not incompatible per se with the inter-American legal framework insofar as it was interpreted in accordance with the Convention’s principles concerning freedom of expression. In other words, the Court reaffirmed the need to conduct the corresponding control of conventionality when applying this article. It is evident that, faced with the neutrality of a norm that may result in the violation of rights – such as freedom of expression in this case – it is the task of the domestic judge to make an interpretation that accords with the American Convention and the case law of this Court. II. THE SUBSEQUENT LIABILITY OF JOURNALISTS AND THE USE OF CRIMINAL LAW IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES 7. Following the Court’s consistent case law, this judgment reaffirms the importance of freedom of expression in matters of public interest. The protection of critical speech permits the existence of a pluralism of ideas and encourages citizens to control the actions of their leaders by participating in public affairs. 1 8. Although in this specific case – as can be noted from the facts described above – the Trial Court excluded a criminal sanction and, therefore, it was not necessary to analyze criminal liability, the consistent case law of this Court should be reiterated: that the application of criminal liability to journalists in cases aimed at protecting the honor of public officials is inadmissible. Hence, it is pertinent to repeat the factual assumptions and relevant standards of the precedents Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela of August 30, 2019, 2 and Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador of November 24, 2021. 3 The European Court of Human Rights has considered that Article 10 of the European 9. Convention “leaves it for journalists to decide whether or not it is necessary to reproduce such documents [supporting their assertions] to ensure credibility. It protects journalists' right to divulge information on issues of general interest provided that they are acting in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide ‘reliable and precise’ information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.” 4 Thus, in light of the facts of the instant case, the consultation of one authoritative source was sufficient and any requirement beyond this was an action that was not protected by Article 13(2) of the Convention. Hence, the imposition of requirements and formalities for gathering information may have a chilling effect on the work of the press and impair its role in a democratic society (infra para. 24). 10. In the case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, the Court considered that the State was responsible for violating the right to freedom of expression and for the political disqualification of Tulio Álvarez Ramos owing to the criminal proceedings instituted against him for the perpetration of the offense of continuing aggravated defamation. The action was filed by a former member and President of the Venezuelan National Assembly and resulted in a sentence Concurring opinion of Judges Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot and Ricardo C. Pérez Manrique. Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, para. 7 1 Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380. 2 Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446. 3 4 ECHR, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GS], 21/01/1999, para. 54