Public officials are subject to greater scrutiny by society. Laws that penalize offensive expressions directed at public officials, generally known as “desacato laws,” restrict freedom of expression and the right to information. 30. In addition to reiterating its condemnation of the criminalization of the offense of disrespect for public authorities (desacato), the IACHR took the opportunity to express its concern with regard to the use of legal provisions on crimes against honor in the same way as laws concerning disrespect for public authorities: In addition, many of these States continue to have criminal libel, slander and defamation laws, which are frequently used in the same manner as desacato laws to silence governmental critics. 24 31. Furthermore, in 2017, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information issued a Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression, Disinformation and Propaganda in which they affirmed that “[c]riminal defamation laws are unduly restrictive [to the right to freedom of expression] and should be abolished.” 25 32. Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights (“the ECHR”) has adopted, when applicable, a position that also reinforces the exceptional nature of a criminal response. Thus, it has admitted the possibility of the criminal prosecution of journalists “only in exceptional circumstances, notably where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired. 26 In addition, it has recognized that imposing a criminal sentence for defamation in a context of debate on matters of public interest, “by its very nature, will inevitably have a chilling effect” (see, Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania). 27 However, it should be pointed out that, even though the European Court refrained from adopting a more incisive position on the incompatibility of criminal prosecution to curb speech of public interest, on many occasions in its judgments that court has called attention to Resolution No. 1577/2007 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which urges the States to decriminalize defamation. 28 33. Returning to the inter-American context, for some time now, as I have recapitulated above, the Court has indicated that manifestations of freedom of expression on matters of public interest – and therefore essential for democracy and the accountability of public officials – enjoy a higher level of protection than other manifestations. 29 Consequently, when matters of public interest are involved, we must increasingly question whether there is an essential social interest that truly justifies the existence of specific criminal laws to punish offenses against honor committed by journalists or through the press, or interpretations of case law that confer harsher reprisals in such cases. The specific legal provisions and their respective Rights at its 108th regular session held from October 16 to 27, 2000. https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/basics/declaration-principles-freedom-expression.pdf. Available at: IACHR, Annual Report, of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2002. Vol. III. Report of the Rapporteurship for freedom of expression, Chapter V. §16. 24 25 Available at: https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=1056&lID=1 ECHR. Case of Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania. Judgment of December 17, 2004, §115. Similarly: ECHR. Fatulalyev v. Azerbaijan. Judgment of April 22, 2010, §103 26 27 ECHR. Case of Cumpana and Mazare v. Romania, §116 28 For example, Otegi Mondragon v. Spain (§31), Ruokanen v. Finland, (§50), and Mariapori v. Finland (§27). 29 IACtHR. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Judgment of February 7, 2001, §§153-56.