of 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment and an accessory sanction of political disqualification. 5 11. The Court considered that, in this situation, “the State’s punitive response by applying criminal law to protect the honor of the official was not admissible under the Convention.” 6 Thus, in the case of matters of public interest divulged by journalists, the Convention prohibits the imposition of a criminal sanction to protect the honor of the public officials involved. 12. It is also relevant to refer to the case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, which relates to the sanction of a journalist and the directors of the El Universo newspaper owing to the publication of an editorial article on a matter of considerable public interest concerning the events of the September 2010 political crisis in Ecuador, and the actions taken by former President Rafael Correa and other authorities in the context of that crisis. 7 13. In Palacio Urrutia, the Court considered that the sanctions or civil liability imposed in that type of case – although they may not, per se, be contrary to the Convention as are criminal sanctions – must be duly reasoned and proportionate, and not aimed at impairing the freedom of expression of the author of the article, or of those employed in a media outlet. 14. In both cases, the Court made an analysis to determine whether the article or information that was the reason for the trial was part of the public debate and, to this end, it assessed the concurrence of, at least, the three following elements: “(i) the subjective element: in other words, that the person was a public official at the time of the allegations made in the media; (ii) the functional element: in other words, that the person was involved in the relevant events in their official capacity, and (iii) the material element: in other words, that the matter raised was of public relevance.” 15. In the case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, the Court found that the three elements were present because the article: (i) referred textually to the actions of Mr. Lara as head of the National Assembly; (ii) referred to the exercise of functions by a public official, and (iii) noted that the management of public monies or resources of the Savings and Social Security Fund of the National Assembly employees was a matter of public interest. This was notwithstanding the critical stance taken by Mr. Álvarez. A critical opinion cannot harm the right to freedom of expression, which is a fundamental pillar of a democratic society and the rule of law. The Court found that “criticism of public officials is not only valid, but also necessary.” 8 16. In the case of Palacio Urrutia, the Court also considered that the article which resulted in those proceedings referred to a matter of public interest that was protected by the right to freedom of expression and related to the exercise of his functions by a public official. In this regard, according to the Court’s standards, “an editorial article that refers to a matter of public interest enjoys a special protection owing to the importance of this type of discourse in a democratic society.” 9 17. Article 13(2) of the Convention indicates that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression may not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent liability. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380. 5 6 Cf. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, para. 121. Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446, para. 87. 7 8 Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, para. 113. 9 Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 115.