authorities were in a better position to assess which right suffered most harm. The Court emphasizes that the statements characterized as libelous were published in a medium that reached many more people than the members of the Mutual Association, so that the honor and the reputation of the complainants was possibly affected before a much larger audience than the one that might benefit from this information. Furthermore, bearing in mind that the domestic judicial authorities concluded that certain characterizations used by Messrs. Mémoli harmed the complainants’ reputation unnecessarily, the Court observes that the subsequent imposition of liability in this case constitutes compliance by the State with the obligation established in Article 11(3) of the Convention, according to which everyone must be protected again abusive attacks on their honor and reputation (supra paras. 125 and 138). 144. In addition, regarding the punishment imposed on Messrs. Mémoli, the Court recalls that it cannot substitute for the domestic authorities in the individualization of the penalties corresponding to offenses established in domestic law, 266 notwithstanding its obligation to analyze the requirement that these penalties comply with the requirements for the subsequent imposition of liability, pursuant to Article 13(2) of the American Convention and the case law of this Court. In this case, Carlos and Pablo Mémoli were given a suspended sentence of one month’s and five months’ imprisonment, respectively. In other words, Carlos Mémoli was sentenced to the minimum term of imprisonment established by domestic law, while Pablo Mémoli was sentenced to less than half the permitted term of imprisonment (supra paras. 131 and 132). 267 In the instant case, this Court observes that the punishments imposed on Messrs. Mémoli were not excessive or manifestly disproportionate in a way that affected their right to freedom of expression. 145. In addition, the Court notes that a central aspect of the dispute between the parties relates to whether or not the information contained in the statements for which Messrs. Mémoli were convicted constituted public interest. In this regard, the Court deems it pertinent to clarify that Article 13 of the Convention protects statements, ideas or information “of all kinds,” whether or not they are of public interest. Nevertheless, when such statements refer to issues of public interest, the judge must assess the need to limit freedom of expression with special care (supra para. 139). 146. In order to protect freedom of expression, the Court has considered of public interest opinions or information on matters in which the Association had a legitimate interest to keep itself informed, to know what had an impact on the functioning of the State, or affected general right or interests, or had significant consequences for it. 268 Contrary to other cases decided by this Court, in the instant case, the statements for which Messrs. Mémoli were convicted did not involve public figures or officials 269 and did not relate to the functioning of State institutions. 270 Rather, the Court notes that the accusations and statement for which 266 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 108, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 150. 267 Article 110 of the Criminal Code in force at the time established that: “[a]nyone who dishonors or discredits another person, shall be punished with a fine of one thousand pesos to ninety thousand pesos or imprisonment from one month to one year” (supra para. 132). 268 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra, para. 51, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 61. 269 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 131; Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, supra, paras. 91 to 94 and 97; Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 51; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra, para. 121, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 63. 270 Such as the Foreign Investments Committee (Case of Claude Reyes v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No 151, para. 73), or the Armed Forces (Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 145). 57