80. Given that this violation occurred as a consequence of the application of a law that fails to meet the requirements of strict legality, the Commission concluded that the State also violated Articles 9 and 2 of the Convention. 81. Furthermore, the Commission considered that the additional penalty of disqualification from holding public office, based on Article 16 of the Venezuelan Criminal Code, was disproportionate, since it was improperly extended beyond the duration of the sentence and also affected Mr. Álvarez’s electoral rights. It further considered that the penalty imposed by the State did not comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality in a democratic society because its use as an additional measure was not justified by the nature of the offense for which Tulio Álvarez was convicted. In this case, his political disqualification had an effect that extended beyond the ban preventing him from holding public office, and also affected his professional activities. 82. The representatives argued that the judgment delivered against Mr. Álvarez on February 28, 2005, confirmed the existence of a pattern of judicial persecution against freedom of expression in Venezuela and, in particular, against journalists, business people, lawyers and others who denounced irregularities committed by State employees, in order to silence criticism of the national government and its policies. 83. They argued that the court had simply considered the complainant’s status as a public servant (President of the National Assembly) to impose the most severe penalty for the crime of “ongoing aggravated defamation.” 84. They further argued that the imposition of subsequent liability on the exercise of freedom of expression was contrary to the standards of International Human Rights Law concerning the restriction of freedom of expression when it involves criticism of public servants or the discussion of matters of public interest. 85. The representatives asked the Court to determine that the imposition of penalties that affect freedom, such as restrictions to freedom of expression, is not appropriate in matters of public interest. Therefore, subsequent liability cannot be applied to the exercise of investigative journalism, when the publication is of public interest or refers to the actions of public servants in the performance of their duties, unless it is done with actual malice. They recalled that during the trial the State made no reference whatsoever to the legality of the restriction, or to its proportionality. 86. Furthermore, they argued that Venezuela’s law on political disqualification is contrary to the American Convention. In this context, Venezuelan Criminal Law considers political disqualification as a penalty additional to the sentences of incarceration or imprisonment. 87. The representatives further argued that, in relation to the requirements for holding political office, Venezuelan laws impose restrictions that prevent persons with a criminal conviction from having access to public service. The political disqualification of Mr. Álvarez continued beyond the term of the sentence established in the judgment of the trial Court which, in itself, constituted a violation of Article 23(1) of the Convention. 88. The State indicated that, according to the report of the Office of the Superintendent of Savings Banks, the National Assembly owed a debt to the Savings Bank. It claimed that the alleged victim knew about this report and decided to publish false information about its content; it added that the statements made in the publication concerned allegations that this same citizen had already submitted before the jurisdictional bodies and had been rejected 18