it is possible to assess the malice of the person issuing the opinions, the characteristics of the harm caused, and the nature of the expression – permits giving greater protection to information of public interest without establishing an absolute rule that disregards the legal complexities and the rights at stake. 9. As I have already stated in the aforementioned opinion in the case of Álvarez Ramos, “it is pertinent not to lose sight of the fact that the possibility of applying criminal sanctions in the case of the most serious attacks on other fundamental rights – such as honor and dignity – is of special relevance to maintain a healthy balance between the different rights recognized by the American Convention. It is important to take into account that opinions, even when they refer to matters of public interest, may cause serious harm to the fundamental rights of a public official – who is not an abstract being, but a person whose rights [merit equal protection].” 3 This balance is clearly revealed in this case in which the Court admits that, in cases in which words cause serious harm to an individual, the civil or criminal sanction may be justified when it meets the other requirements under Article 13 of the Convention developed by the case law of this Court. Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 3 supra. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, para. 12. Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador,