The Court has maintained that freedom of expression has a greater latitude when it relates to issues that are specific to public debate in a democratic society, but this does not mean that the honor of public officials should not be protected by law. However, it should be noted that the said article does not establish the nature of the liability that may be claimed. The Court considers that, in the case of discourse protected by its public interest, such as that relating to the conduct of public officials in the exercise of their functions, the State’s punitive response by the use of criminal law in order to protect the honor of the public official is not compatible with the Convention; rather, to the contrary, it is an abuse that harms the transparency of a democratic society. 18. I find it relevant to underscore these aspects due to their significance for democratic society and public scrutiny because, as the Court indicated in the case of Palacio Urrutia, the use of criminal law to sanction journalists for disseminating news items of public interest, “would limit freedom of expression and would prevent public scrutiny of unlawful conduct, such as acts of corruption, abuse of authority, etc. Ultimately, this would weaken public control over the branches of State, causing significant harm to democratic pluralism.” 10 As the European Court of Human Rights has indicated, “[t]he punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest.” 11 19. This does not mean that, eventually, journalism cannot result in liability in another legal area, such as the civil sphere, or a rectification or public apology: for example, in cases of possible abuse or excesses of bad faith. However, since this relates to the exercise of an activity protected by the Convention, criminal prosecution is excluded and, hence, the possibility that it should be considered a crime and subject to punishment. 20. I find it necessary to point out that, in the case of newspaper opinion pieces, the opinions are exempt from State control, except as mentioned in Article 13(5) of the American Convention. Regarding informative articles on matters of public interest, in addition to not being subject to prior censorship, they are also subject to the Court’s case law on the incompatibility of a criminal response with the Convention. In all cases, the burden of proof falls to the plaintiff. 21. This interpretation is fully consistent with Article 14 of the American Convention, which establishes the right to rectification or reply as an appropriate mechanism to guarantee the right to honor and the honor of third parties. 12 22. In any case, given that different measures can be taken to attribute liability, I will now examine the scope of the due diligence that can be required of journalists in the selection and use of sources of information and possible civil liability. III. THE REQUIREMENT OF DUE DILIGENCE IN THE SELECTION AND USE OF SOURCES IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE LIABIITY OF JOURNALISTS 23. In the instant case, the Court has indicated that the information published in the 10 Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 118. 11 ECHR. Jersild v. Denmark, no. 15890/89, September 23, 1994, para. 35. Article 14. Right of Reply. 1. Anyone injured by inaccurate or offensive statements or ideas disseminated to the public in general by a legally regulated medium of communication has the right to reply or to make a correction using the same communications outlet, under such conditions as the law may establish. 2. The correction or reply shall not in any case remit other legal liability that may have been incurred. 3. For the effective protection of honor and reputation, every publisher, and every newspaper, motion picture, radio, and television company, shall have a person responsible who is not protected by immunities or special privileges. 12