was not contested that the article published in the newspaper El Universo, under the title "No a las mentiras", was an opinion article99. Likewise, the first instance conviction, confirmed in higher instances, condemned for serious slanderous insult against the authority to a severe sentence of imprisonment against journalist Emilio Palacio Urrutia -author of the article- and to Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lappenti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and César Enrique Pérez Barriga, executives of El Universo. The courts imposed a compensation for damages unprecedented in the region, valued at 30 million dollars to be paid by the natural persons. They also condemned the legal entity that publishes El Universo to ten million dollars. After these judgements were finalized, the complainant forgave and condoned the convictions imposed. 77. The Commission assessed that in the present case we are faced with an opinion article written by journalist Emilio Palacio Urrutia and published by the newspaper El Universo in 2012, in the context of a controversial event of greater public interest, of which the main protagonist was the then President Rafael Correa. It should be noted that the then President Correa did not lack means, resources, or spaces to defend his position in a public way and respond to criticisms and questions addressed to his administration. Similarly, there is no doubt that at the time of the events there was a policy of confrontation and hostility led by the president and the state apparatus against a good part of journalists and the media in Ecuador, in particular against the newspaper El Universo. 1. Criminal conviction against journalist Emilio Palacio Urrutia 78. The circumstances of the episodes that occurred on September 30, 2010 in Ecuador, which began with a police strike, followed by the intervention of the then President and the Army, drew national and international attention. Due to this, Emilio Palacio Urrutia wrote the opinion article "No a las Mentiras", about an event that gave rise to a controversy that continues to date, related to the nature of the episode, the responsibilities that can fit both the officers who exercised the protest, as to the acts of the President and other high authorities, as well as on the use of force by the state security agencies. 79. The IACHR observes in the present case that the opinions published by journalist Emilio Palacio Urrutia were expressed in the form of intense questions to a presidential action, but they do not escape the margin of tolerance required by a democracy in which public officials are subject to citizen control. As the IACHR has pointed out on other occasions, "[t]he kind of political debate that the right to freedom of expression gives rise to will inevitably generate certain critical or even offensive speeches for those who hold public office or are intimately linked to the formulation of public policy”100. 80. The IACHR understands that this case deals with the importance of freedom of expression and journalism in a democratic society, while it refers to public officials and matters of high public interest. At the same time, the IACHR wishes to emphasize that journalistic activity must also be governed by ethical conduct, although these should not be imposed by the States. As the Inter-American Court and the European Court have pointed out, the development of a responsible and ethical journalism is of particular relevance in a contemporary society where the media not only informs but can also suggest, through the way they present the information, the way that information should be understood.101 81. "In the democratic context, expressions of public officials or persons exercising public functions, as well as of candidates for public office, should enjoy a particularly reinforced margin of openness”102. It should be stressed that "public officials and those who aspire to be, in a democratic society, have a different threshold of protection, which exposes them to a greater degree to public scrutiny and Fact affirmed by the petitioner in his petition brief, presented on October 24, 2011 to the IACHR. This fact has not been contested by the State. In document No. 08162 dated June 5, 2012, submitted to the IACHR, the State mentions: "On February 6, 2011, the article was published by Mr. Emilio Palacio titled 'No a las mentiras' in the Columnists section of the newspaper ‘El Universo’". 99 100IACHR. 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. 41. 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. IACHR, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, Principle 6, available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=26&lID=1. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293, para. 139. 101 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. 40. 102 18