59 97. Democratic control exercised by society through public opinion encourages the transparency of State activities and promotes the accountability of public officials in public administration, for which there should be a reduced margin for any restriction on political debates or on debates on matters of public interest.130 98. The Court has established that it is logical and appropriate that statements concerning public officials and other individuals who exercise functions of a public nature should be accorded, in the terms of Article 13(2) of the Convention, a certain latitude in the broad debate on matters of public interest that is essential for the functioning of a truly democratic system.131 The same principle applies to opinions and statements of public interest made with regard to an individual who stands as candidate for the presidency of the Republic, thereby voluntarily laying himself open to public scrutiny, and to matters of public interest about which society has a legitimate interest to keep itself informed and to know what influences the functioning of the State, affects general interests or rights, or entails important consequences. As has been established, it is evident that Mr. Canese’s statements about CONEMPA relate to matters of public interest (supra para. 92). 99. In this respect, when it delivered its ruling annulling the sentences handed down in 1994 and 1997, on December 11, 2002 (supra para. 69(49)), and absolved the alleged victim of guilt and pardoned him, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay referred to the nature and relevance of his statements, when it indicated, inter alia, that: The statements made by Mr. Canese – in the political context of an election campaign for the presidency – were, necessarily, important in a democratic society working towards a participative and pluralist power structure, a matter of public interest. There is nothing more important and public than the popular discussion on and subsequent election of the President of the Republic. 100. The foregoing considerations do not, by any means, signify that the honor of public officials or public figures should not be legally protected, but that it should be protected in accordance with the principles of democratic pluralism.132 Moreover, the protection of the reputation of individuals who are involved in activities of public interest should be carried out according to the principles of democratic pluralism. 101. Article 11 of the Convention establishes that everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. Hence, this right implies a limit to the expressions, attacks or interferences of individuals or the State. Consequently, it is legitimate for the individual who considers his honor affected to have recourse to the judicial mechanisms established by the State to protect it. 102. With regard to permissible limitations to freedom of expression, the European Court of Human Rights has maintained consistently that a distinction must be made between the restrictions applicable when the object of the expression is an individual and when reference is made to a public person, such as a politician. In this respect, the European Court has stated that: 130 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 15, para. 127; Case of Ivcher-Bronstein, supra note 114, para. 155; similarly, Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey, nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94, § 60, ECHR Judgment of 8 July 1999. 131 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 15, para. 128. 132 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 15, para. 128.