Charter characterizes freedom of expression and the press as "fundamental components of the exercise of democracy”94. 72. Despite its fundamental importance, freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Article 13.2 of the American Convention, which prohibits prior censorship, also provides for the possibility of establishing restrictions on freedom of expression, through the application of subsequent liabilities, for the abusive exercise of this right. However, these restrictions are exceptional and must satisfy the conditions imposed by the Convention, that is, they must be provided for in law, have a legitimate purpose, and be necessary and proportional to the attainment of that end in a democratic society95. Failure to comply with any of these requirements implies that the measure imposed is contrary to the American Convention. 73. Regarding compliance with the aforementioned conditions, the IACHR and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have repeatedly pointed out that States have a more limited scope to impose restrictions on the right to freedom of expression "whenever it is refers to expressions related to the State, matters of public interest, public officials in the exercise of their functions or candidates for public office, or individuals voluntarily involved in public affairs, as well as discourse and political debate”96. 74. In the same vein, it has been said that the analysis of proportionality of restrictive measures must take into account: "(1) the highest degree of protection enjoyed by expressions related to the suitability of public officials and its management or those who aspire to hold public office; (2) the political debate or the debate on matters of public interest —given the need for a greater margin of openness for the broad debate required by a democratic system and the citizen control inherent in it—; and (3) the correlative threshold of greater tolerance to criticism that state institutions and officials must demonstrate in the face of affirmations and assessments made by persons in the exercise of such democratic control[...]". The Inter-American Court stresses that "expressions concerning the suitability of a person for the performance of a public office or acts performed by public officials in the performance of their duties enjoy greater protection, in such a way as to encourage democratic debate”97. 75. In particular, it is essential that journalists who work in the media enjoy the necessary protection and independence to carry out their duties fully, since they are the ones who keep society informed, an essential requirement so that it enjoys full freedom and public debate strengthens98. 76. In this case, it has not been disputed that the State used criminal law to sanction an expression protected in principle by the right to freedom of expression, being the most restrictive and severe instrument it has. Nor has it been questioned that the statements made by journalist Emilio Palacio Urrutia are related to a matter of public interest linked to the actions of the President of the Republic, acting as an elected official. It Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa. 17 - 23 October, 2002; African Court on Human Rights and Peoples´ Rights. In the Matter of Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso. Application No. 004/2013. Judgment December 5, 2014. Art. 4, Inter-American Democratic Charter, http://www.oas.org/charter/docs/resolution1_en_p4.htm. approved 94 September 11, 2001. Available at: Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 120; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 95, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 79; I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 54. See also: Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report 2009 of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, page. 258, paras. 68 and 69. 95 IACHR. Annual Report 1994. Chapter V: Report on the Compatibility of “Desacato” Laws with the American Convention on Human Rights. Title III. OEA/Ser. L/V/II.88. doc. 9 rev. February 17, 1995, and Annual Report 2009. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Inter-American Legal Framework of the Right to Freedom of Expression). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 51. December 30, 2009. Para. 100. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74; Corte IDH, I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135; I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177. 96 IACHR. Annual Report 2009. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Inter-American Legal Framework of the Right to Freedom of Expression). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 51. December 30, 2009. Para. 101. 97 IACHR. Arguments before the Inter-American Court in the case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Transcribed in: I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 119. 98 17