protection of honor through criminal law, which may be legitimate in other cases, is not consistent with the Convention in the previously described scenario. 179 119. This does not mean, as in the case indicated above, that a speech protected by public interest such as those referring to the conduct of public officials in the exercise of their duties, the honor of public officials or of public individuals, should not be legally protected. 180 Journalistic conduct can produce liability in another legal sphere, such as in civil law, or require correction or public apologies, for example, in cases of possible abuses or excesses of bad faith. However, this case involves the exercise of an activity protected by the Convention, which precludes its criminal characterization and, therefore, the possibility of being considered a crime and being subject to penalties. In this regard, it must be made clear that this is not a question of excluding a prohibition through justification or special permission, but rather of the free exercise of an activity that the Convention protects because it is indispensable for the preservation of democracy. 181 120. In this regard, the Court recalls that in the case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, it held that, in the case of a speech protected by public interest, such as those referring to the conduct of public officials in the performance of their duties, the State’s punitive response through criminal law is not appropriate, under the convention, to protect the honor of an official. 182 Thus, given that in the present case the alleged victims were criminally sanctioned for the publication of the article "NO to lies", which was an opinion piece criticizing the actions of the then President while carrying out his duties, and that it addressed a matter of public interest, the Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to freedom of expression under the terms of Article 13 of the American Convention. 121. Additionally, the Court considers that the amount of the compensation imposed in the case in itself constituted an evidently disproportionate sanction in relation to the protected legal interest. In this regard, the Court recalls that the imposition of this sanction was applied by the Fifteenth Court, considering that the article "NO to lies" caused "serious damages" because "it undermines the confidence that people have in him, and a loss of earnings, due to the future expectation that a statesman derives from his activities, both public and private.” It is clear, in this sense, that there is no proportional relationship between the seriousness of the sanction applied and the protection of the damages that the then President would have suffered to his honor. 122. In addition, the Court notes that the judgment lacks substantiation regarding the causal relationship between the amount of the compensation, and the alleged “damages and losses” that the then President would have suffered. Similarly, the State recognized that “the fact that the criminal proceeding had been filed against El Universo newspaper constituted a breach of the principle of jurisdiction and legality” (supra, par. 19), in such a way that the sanction imposed on the newspaper became arbitrary. 123. The Court also confirms that the aforementioned facts affected work at El Universo, and generated fear about the possibility that the media outlet would be closed, 179 Cf. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, par. 122. Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, par. 128, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, par. 118. 180 181 Cf. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, par. 124. 182 Cf. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, par. 121. 41