other National Assembly, and b) “only partial deposits have been made, and the debt has now reached Bs. 1,701,723,317.25. according to Iván Rafael Delgado Abreu, Superintendent of Savings Banks of the Venezuelan Finance Ministry, in communication DDS-OAL-1841, received by the office of the current president of the National Assembly on April 28, 2003.” The petitioner reportedly repeated these statements later during the criminal proceedings against him. 94. It follows from the examination of the evidence presented by the parties that these statements were plausible and that they concern matters of clear public interest. In fact, the Office of the Superintendent stated that on the date of the events in question there was a pending debt owed to the Savings Bank of the National Assembly for contributions and withholdings. In the words of the Superintendent’s Office, “The debt incurred by [the legislature] for contributions and withholdings [reached] approximately ONE BILLION SEVEN HUNDRED ONE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN BOLIVARES AND TWENTY-FIVE CENTIMOS (Bs. 1,701,723,317.25) in February [2003]” [emphasis in the original]. The Office of the Superintendent indicated that the debt had resulted in a decrease in the bank’s assets that had “significantly affected its liquidity, preventing it from meeting the social objectives for which it was established, the commitments made to its members, and its principal mission which is to encourage savings and the household economy, protected by Articles 118 and 308 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela”. 95. The IACHR additionally observes that the petitioner asserted in his article that this debt was the result of the diversion of earmarked funds used “to cover other expenses of the legislature.” This assertion seems to correspond to the complaint filed by the employees of the Legislative Assembly on March 5, 2003, in which they requested preliminary impeachment proceedings against the President of the National Assembly, Representative Willian Lara, for the alleged commission of the crimes of “Aggravated Misappropriation of Public Funds, Intentional Embezzlement and Negligent Embezzlement,” provided for and punishable under Articles 60, 58, and 59 of the Organic Law to Safeguard Public Assets. In their complaint, the National Assembly employees alleged “the use of monies from the benefits fund to make payments and honor commitments totally unrelated to the employees’ rights. The latter allegation concerns payments for hired personnel, which tripled during the term of the accused, Congressman Willian Lara.” In particular, it was alleged that Congressman Willian Lara “used the Benefits Fund for a different purpose, intentionally breached contractual agreements, and resorted to subterfuge in order to conceal his misappropriation of funds. Specifically, he requested additional credits to replace the funds that he misappropriated, avoided the presentation of accounts during his term, and concealed his actions by closing the bank accounts that the National Assembly has at the Industrial Bank of Venezuela [Banco Industrial] every year during his term, and finally, to complete the commission of his crime, the accused allocated the 2003 budget in advance, adversely affecting the term of the National Assembly’s new board of directors.” 96. Naturally, the latter assertion could offend and affect the reputation of Representative Willian Lara. However, the IACHR notes that it was made within the context of the verification and condemnation of irregularities at the Savings Bank and an employment dispute between State workers and their employer. Once again, the statements of the petitioner—who was also the legal representative and defender of the National Assembly employees—concerned matters of public interest which, in any case, because they referred to the management of public funds, should be investigated, corrected, or clarified by the bodies in question. 97. The IACHR has consistently maintained that the State has other, less restrictive alternatives for the protection of privacy and reputation than the use of a criminal penalty. It can meet its obligation to protect the rights of others by establishing statutory protections against intentional attacks on honor and reputation through civil actions that respect international standards and by enacting laws that guarantee the right of correction and reply. In this way, the State guarantees the protection of the private life of all persons without abusing its coercive powers to repress the individual freedom to form and express opinions. Similarly, the Inter-American Court has consistently held in its case law 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. The foregoing considerations