considered that the statements made by Mr. Grijalva are protected under Article 13(1) of the American Convention and that Ecuador violated said article. 150. The State argued that the criminal proceedings against Mr. Grijalva Bueno were formally opened more than one year after his discharge from the naval ranks, and after factual and legal grounds were found regarding his participation in a criminal offense, established in the Military Criminal Code, while he was performing his duties in the Captaincy of Puerto Bolívar. Those elements arose from testimonial statements and documentary evidence that led to the presumption of a military offense and the consequent criminal responsibility for the facts. 151. The State insisted that the military criminal proceedings were in no way an act of reprisal against Mr. Grijalva Bueno. It maintained that in the instant case there was no fabrication of criminal charges, nor were there disproportionate sanctions and there was no arbitrary arrest or detention; rather, the due process established in the domestic judicial system was followed. Thus, any claims of retaliation are based solely on subjective criteria, with no real basis in fact and should therefore be discarded. The State emphasized that the initiation and substantiation of the proceedings and the subsequent conviction, ratified in double instance, can in no way be considered as a violation of the right to freedom of expression. Consequently, it requested that the Court declare that the State did not violate the right enshrined in Article 13(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Grijalva Bueno. B. Considerations of the Court 152. With respect to the content of the right to freedom of thought and expression, the Court has indicated that those who are under the protection of the Convention have the right to seek, receive, and impart ideas and information of all kinds, as well as the right to receive and examine information and ideas disseminated by others. 127 For this reason, freedom of expression has both an individual dimension and a social dimension and the Court has understood that both dimensions are of equal importance and must be simultaneously guaranteed to ensure the full effectiveness of the right to freedom of thought and expression, in the terms established in Article 13 of the Convention. 128 Freedom of expression, particularly in matters of public interest, “is the cornerstone of the very existence of a democratic society.” 129 According to the Convention, freedom of expression is not an absolute right.130 The American Convention guarantees everyone the right to freedom of expression, regardless of any other consideration. 131 153. According to the evidence, it was established that Mr. Grijalva Bueno was a member of the Ecuadorian Naval Force, with the rank of Lieutenant Commander attached to the General Directorate of the Merchant Navy, and that in February 1992 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 53, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 76. 128 Cf. Case of "The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 67, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 80. 129 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 105, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 13, 2018. Series C No. 352, para. 174. 130 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 120, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, para. 81. 131 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 114, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 82. 127 39