with current demands for the protection of the right to freedom of expression, even more so considering the importance of the protection of the work of journalists and the media for democracy and pluralism in our societies. III. THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION REGARDING OPINION SPEECH IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 25. Both the precedent of the Case of Álvarez Ramos and this judgment recognize special protection for opinion speech made by journalists, regarding the actions of public officials carrying out their duties, when it comes to matters of public interest. As we have previously pointed out, this criterion prohibits the criminalization of journalists and the media in this case, as a measure of protection of their freedom of expression and of those who receive the message they transmit, which is fundamental to the existence of a democratic, tolerant and plural system. From this perspective, the approach that the Court has taken since 2019 represents progress with respect to the scope of the protection established in Article 13 of the American Convention, since it gives greater protection to speech in the public interest against attacks by the authorities whose objective is to silence those who criticize them for their actions as rulers. 26. However, it is important to point out the versatile space that the criterion reiterated in this judgment has, because although the factual assumptions that have been addressed in Àlvarez Ramos and in Palacio Urrutia have referred to opinion articles issued by journalists regarding public officials carrying out their duties, the protection of opinion speech and public interest may be broader than this particular assumption. In this sense, in the first place, it is possible to note that international human rights law has recognized a greater protection of opinions, which can be deduced from the fundamental importance that the protection of speech must have in order to achieve the effective participation of people, and in particular journalists, in the public sphere, and in this way sustain and increase democracy and pluralism. The paradigmatic example in this regard is article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which establishes that "[n]o one shall be harassed because of his opinions." 27. This high level of protection has been reflected in other authorized international sources, such as the Joint Declaration of the rapporteurs on freedom of expression of the UN and the OAS for the year 2000. 26 In said Declaration, it was pointed out that all States should review their defamation laws so that they are compatible with freedom of expression, and in particular that no one should be prosecuted for said criminal offenses for expressing opinions. In the same vein, the UN Human Rights Committee has declared that defamation “should not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, by their nature, subject to verification”. 27 The European Court has also upheld high protection for opinions regarding laws that sanction defamation. In the Case of Dichand and Ors v. Austria, it held that, unlike the facts, opinions cannot be proven and therefore should enjoy broader protection. 28 Following the same logic, the Inter-American Court stated the following in the Case of Kimel v. Argentina: 26 Cf. Joint Declaration by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. Current Challenges to Media Freedom, London, November 30, 2000, available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/c/b/40190.pdf. 27 Cf. UN Human Rights Committee. General Observation nº 34. Article 19. Freedoms of opinion and expression, September 12, 2011, par. 47. 28 Cf. ECHR. Dichand and Ors c. Austria, February 26, 2002, par. 42. 8