in the exercise of its jurisdiction, iura novit curia, the Commission concludes that the State also failed to comply with Article 9 and 2 of Convention. 2.2. Legitimate aim of the restriction 97. The limitations imposed on freedom of expression must also pursue the achievement of some of the overriding objectives established exhaustively in the American Convention. According to Article 13.2 of the American Convention, the protection of the honor and reputation of others can be a reason to establish subsequent liabilities for the abusive exercise of freedom of expression117, which implies that anyone who considers themselves injured in their reputation may resort to the judicial means of the State available for their protection118. 98. In the present case, the IACHR observes that the crime of "serious slanderous insult against the authority", for which the journalist Emilio Palacio Urrutia was sentenced, sought to protect the reputation and honor of then President Rafael Correa. The Commission finds then that the second element of the test would be satisfied. However, the Commission warns that this element alone does not authorize the use of criminal law in cases such as the one under analysis. Next, it will be analyzed if the limitation imposed in order to protect the honor or reputation was strictly necessary for the functioning of the democratic society. 2.3. Strict necessity and proportionality of the restriction 99. As mentioned, the Commission and the Inter-American Court have consistently held that the test of the need for limitations on freedom of expression must be applied more strictly to political discourse and matters of public interest119, as well as the discourse about public officials and candidates for public office120. Democratic control through public opinion promotes the transparency of state activities and promotes the responsibility of public officials for their public management, which is why there must be a reduced margin for any restriction of political debate or debate on issues of public interest121. In the case of Kimel v Argentina, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated that there should be extremely serious data "that highlights the absolute need to use, in a truly exceptional manner, criminal measures”122. 100. The Commission has mentioned that "[t]he kind of political debate that gives rise to the right to freedom of expression will inevitably generate certain critical or even offensive speeches for those who occupy public positions or are intimately linked to the formulation of public policy"123. In this regard, the IACHR has maintained that the protection of honor or reputation should only be guaranteed through civil sanctions in cases where the offended person is a public official or a public or private person who has voluntarily been involved in matter of public interest124, always in accordance with the principles of democratic pluralism125. As I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para.71; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 118. 117 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 55; 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. 101. 118 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, paras. 57 and 87; I/A Court H.R., Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, paras. 84, 86, and 87; 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. 83; 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. 127. 119 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 86; 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. 82. 120 IACHR, Report No. 82/10, Case 12,524, Merits, Jorge Fontevecchia and Hector d'Amico, Argentina, July 13, 2010, para. 99. 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, para. 155; 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. 127. 121 122 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 78. 123 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. 124 IACHR, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, Principle 10. 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. 128. 125 22