a consequence, the use and application of criminal mechanisms to sanction expressions on issues of public interest, and especially on public or political officials, per se violates article 13 of the American Convention, since there is no imperative social interest that justifies it, it is unnecessary and disproportionate, and can also constitute a means of indirect censorship given its intimidating and inhibiting effect on the debate on matters of public interest126. 101. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly considered unnecessary and/or disproportionate, and therefore incompatible with the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention, the imposition of criminal sanctions (even when they have not been made effective) in relation to expressions on matters of public interest127, as a consequence of speeches clearly offensive or disturbing that may affect the rights of public servants. In effect, in the case Castells v. Spain, the European Court determined that the Spanish State violated Article 10 by sentencing a senator to a year and a day in prison who accused the national government and the monarchy of complicity in a series of murders in the Basque Country128. 102. However, in the last decade, the European Court, in addition to finding that the application of criminal law is unnecessary and disproportionate in the specific case, has developed a general rule on the exceptional nature of criminal sanctions when it comes to expressions on matters of public interest. Thus, the European Court has stated that "a prison sentence imposed for an offense committed in the field of political discourse is compatible only with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention in exceptional circumstances, in particular, when other fundamental rights have been seriously affected, as in the hypothesis, for example, for the dissemination of hate speech or incitement to violence”129. 103. This jurisprudential rule was established by the Court in 2004 in the case of Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania mentioned above, and reiterated subsequently in the Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan and Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, among others. Regarding this last case, the Court analyzed the existence of a possible violation of the right to freedom of expression in a criminal conviction for the crime of insults against the King, uttered by a politician. The Court understood that the expressions that gave rise to the criminal conviction, according to which the questioned official (in this case the King) was the head of an army of torturers that had been imposed by the political regime through the exercise of terror, even if they were annoying, disturbing, or unfair, they were part of the political debate or of public interest. To this end, the Court considered that while the determination of penalties is in principle, a prerogative of national jurisdictions, the imposition of a prison sentence is not compatible with freedom of expression when it is applied to sanction expressions issued against public figures in the framework of the political debate, except in the case of extreme cases, such as when expressions constitute hate speech or incitement to violence130. 104. The European Court has since emphasized, in addition, the fact that the existence of prison sentences in terms of freedom of expression has an "evident" and "inevitable" chilling effect on the exercise of this right, and inhibits investigative journalists from reporting on matters of general public interest131. For the European Court, the rights to reputation, honor, and privacy of officials must be protected by adequate and 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. 101.2); IACHR. Arguments before the Inter-American Court in the case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Transcribed in: 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. 72.h). 126 See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Castells v. Spain. Complaint no. 11798/85. April 23, 1992; Dalban v. Rumania. Complaint no. 28114/95. September 28, 1999; Şener vs. Turkey. Complaint no. 26680/95. July 18, 2000; Halis v. Turkey. Complaint no. 30007/96. January 11, 2005; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan. Complaint no. 40984/07. April 22, 2010; Gutiérrez Suarez v. Spain. Complaint no. 16023/07. June 1, 2010. 127 128 European Court of Human Rights, Castells v. Spain. Complaint no. 11798/85. April 23, 1992. European Court of Human Rights, Cumpănă y Mazăre v. Rumania, Complaint no. 33348/96. December 17, 2004, para. 115; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan. Complaint no. 40984/07. April 22, 2010, para. 103; Otegi Mondragon v. España. European Court of Human Rights. Complaint no. 2034/07. September 15, 2011, para. 59. 129 130 European Court of Human Rights. Otegi Mondragon v. Spain. Complaint no 2034/07. September 15, 2011, paras. 50 and 59. European Court of Human Rights, Cumpănă y Mazăre v. Rumania, Complaint no. 33348/96. December 17, 2004, paras. 113-114; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan. Complaint no. 40984/07. April 22, 2010, para. 102. 131 23