defendant’s statements cannot be regarded as having the required seriousness and reasonableness.” The same analysis was adopted by the Supreme Court when hearing the appeal for annulment. Consequently, the State argued that the national judges evaluated the right to freedom of expression in relation to the right to honor, weighing both rights. 86. The State also argued that even if the most stringent standard (actual malice or reckless disregard) were adopted, there would be no violation of Article 13 of the Convention in this case. It emphasized that in the instant case, the standard of actual malice is satisfied since Mr. Baraona was convicted after the judge concluded that he had acted “recklessly” (as the Supreme Court described it) or “at least boldly” (as the trial judge described it), without any plausible grounds to support the accusations he made, claiming to have information that the trial showed he did not have and, according to the lower court, “knowing or must have known” that the information at his disposal only supported some of his allegations. 87. In addition to the tripartite analysis carried out by the Commission, the State pointed out that the domestic courts conducted an analysis of proportionality stricto sensu of the measure, explicitly weighing freedom of expression against the right to honor. Furthermore, they analyzed whether in the specific case it was disproportionate to satisfy the right to honor over freedom of expression. On this last point, the State mentioned that a comparison should be made between: a) a substantive infringement of the right to honor of Senator SP, resulting from an accusation, in the media, of unlawful and immoral acts; with b) an act of freedom of expression which, from the background of the case, appears to be unfounded and lacking the minimum basis and, therefore, is not related to the public interest. Regarding this comparison, it was pointed out that in the opinion of the national judiciary, the most affected right should prevail, and in this specific case it was the right to honor. In addition, the State argued that, contrary to the Commission’s statement, in this case the use of a criminal measure was justified and was consistent with this Court’s case law. Finally, it pointed out that even if the standard indicated by the Commission were correct, it would not apply to this case since the public interest was not at stake. This is because the public discussion on the illegal logging of alerce trees – which is clearly a matter of public interest - must be distinguished from Mr. Baraona's accusations concerning the involvement of Senator SP, a matter that “could not be of public interest, as there is no public interest in the mere accusation of unlawful acts without any evidence that would make this accusation at least plausible.” B. Considerations of the Court B.1 The importance of freedom of thought and expression in a democratic society 88. The Court has established that freedom of expression, particularly in matters of public interest, “is a cornerstone upon which the very existence of a democratic society rests.”102 This right must not only be guaranteed with regard to the dissemination of information or ideas that are favorably received or considered harmless or indifferent, but also with regard to those that are unpleasant for the State or any sector of the population.103 Thus, any condition, restriction or sanction in this matter must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Without an effective guarantee of freedom of expression, the democratic system is weakened and pluralism and tolerance suffer; monitoring and citizen complaint mechanisms 102 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 70, and Case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 63. 103 Cf. Case of "The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 69, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446, para. 87. 28