7 would be witnesses of the monologue of power, whether political or of other type, before itself and a number of captive auditors or spectators. 28. I also consider the demarcation made by the Inter-American Court between the information that makes existing facts available to the public and seeks to portrait reality –dignified by the urgency and the objectivity of a competent and recognized professional- and the opinion expressed by a commentator, analyst, or author in general regarding such facts, to be relevant. If it is possible to assess a piece of news as being true or false, matching it with the reality it seeks to describe, it is not reasonable to assess an opinion in the same manner, as the latter is in itself a viewpoint, a perception, an interpretation, or an assessment with which you can agree or dissent by expressing another opinion and that, therefore, can be assessed as reasonable or irrational, clever or wrong, but never as true or false. It is needless to say how dangerous it may be to debate before the courts the validity of opinions, even more so if done in a criminal proceedings: in crimes against freedom of expression freedom itself is choked and tyranny thrives. 29. Finally, it is important to note that the Court has reiterated its position regarding an issue which is raised once more on account of the criminal proceedings brought on the grounds of alleged crimes against the right to inform and express one’s opinion (regarding which I do reiterate the reservations made above): the burden of proof. As pointed out by the Court in prior cases, said principle is applicable to any conduct, as a general guarantee in the relationship between the State and the individuals, which results in the impairment of the latter’s rights: “At all stages the burden of proof must fall on the party who brings the criminal proceedings” (para. 78 of the Judgment rendered in the case of Kimel). Sergio García-Ramírez Judge Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri Secretary