against public officials, a concern that is reflected in the innovative approach advocated by the Inter-American Court. 91. Rules that establish a heavier penalty because of the public duties performed by the complainant are diametrically opposed to international jurisprudence, which provides for greater tolerance of criticism against public authorities, even if it is considered offensive. Such is the case of the precedents of Lingens v. Austria, and Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, cited at the beginning of this opinion. 92. Although the purpose of the Inter-American Court’s decision on reparations was to reform Articles 416, 417, 418 and 420 of the Chilean Criminal Code, as well as Article 29 of Law 19733, the elimination of criminal proceedings as a mechanism for protecting the honor of public officials in the terms proposed in the judgment has major implications for the analysis of Article 12(13) of the Criminal Code. In other words, if criminal liability for insulting or accusing State agents of offensive acts is clearly incompatible with the Convention, as a logical consequence, the increased penalty imposed when their honor is harmed is equally incompatible with the Convention. Rules such as those contained in Art. 12(13), therefore, directly contravene the guidelines established in Baraona Bray v. Chile. 93. We believe that further clarification is necessary on this point, in line with recent standards issued by the Court. In analyzing aggravated criminal liability for use of the media in light of the American Convention, we are not referring solely and exclusively to the specific wording of Article 12(13) of the Chilean Criminal Code: in terms of conventionality control, we should take into account any interpretation promoted by the courts that results in similar effects or that adopts the same rationale cited above. Please refer to the considerations of the Inter-American Court in the judgment on reparation measures, which reiterates the standard established in the case of Palacio Urrutia v. Ecuador: 71 173. The Court reiterates that it is not only the suppression or issuance of norms in domestic law that guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention, in conformity with the obligation contained in Article 2 of said instrument. It also requires the establishment of State practices conducive to the effective observance of the rights and liberties enshrined therein. Consequently, the existence of a standard does not in itself guarantee its correct application. It is necessary that the application of the norms or their interpretation, as jurisdictional practices and manifestations of the State’s public order, be consistent with the purpose pursued by Article 2 of the Convention. 72 94. It should be noted that, even if this provision were to be modified, repealed or interpreted as invalid by the domestic courts, this would not be equivalent per se to eliminating the possibility of increasing the penalty for specific reasons to protect the honor of public officials or authorities with greater severity than if they did not hold such a position. To this end, it is necessary that the interpretation made by the State’s jurisdictional organs be adjusted to the conventional guidelines developed by the Inter-American Court in its case law. VI. Final considerations 95. As we have tried to demonstrate throughout this opinion, the judgment handed down in the case of Baraona Bray v. Chile introduced one of the most important Inter-American Court. Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C. No. 446. §179. 72 Judgment, §173. 71