about the powers of the Attorney General to intercept and record telephone conversations, a debate in which were immersed, among others, judicial authorities". In the opinion of the Inter-American Court, the importance of not inhibiting democratic debate on a matter of public interest is an element that should be considered by the judge when establishing possible subsequent liabilities for the exercise of freedom of expression: "the judiciary must take into consideration the context in which expressions are made in matters of public interest; the judge must 'weigh respect for the rights or reputation of others with the value that open debate on issues of public interest or concern' has in a democratic society’”141. 117. In a related manner, inter-American jurisprudence has highlighted the importance of the role of the media in the broad information on matters of public interest that affect society142; In this sense, it explained that freedom of expression grants both media executives and journalists working in them the right to investigate and disseminate facts of public interest in this way143; and has explained that the prosecution of people, including journalists and social communicators, by the mere fact of investigating, writing, and publishing information of public interest, violates freedom of expression by discouraging public debate on matters of interest to society144 and generating an effect of self-censorship145. 118. “This does not mean, in any way, that the honor of public officials or public persons should not be legally protected, but that it should be so in accordance with the principles of democratic pluralism; [...] this different threshold of protection is not based on the quality of the subject, but on the character of public interest that involves the activities or actions of a specific person. […], consequently, are exposed to an increased risk of criticism, since their activities leave the domain of the private sphere to be inserted in the sphere of the public debate”146. At the same time, the IACHR reiterates that understands the need of encouraging responsible and ethical journalism and its particular relevance in a contemporary society. 119. The Commission considers that the severe criminal sanction and the exorbitant civil sanction applied to the alleged victims, constituted unnecessary and manifestly disproportionate sanctions. The IACHR has considered, in accordance with its reiterated doctrine, that the State has other ways and alternatives for the protection of privacy and reputation that are less restrictive than the application of a criminal sanction, this is to say, the civil route and, the guarantee of the right of rectification or response. In both situations, the State must adhere to international standards. As mentioned above, the president was also able to widely disseminate his version and interpretation of the facts before the public opinion. 3. The criminal and civil liability of El Universo’s executives and of the legal entity El Universo 120. In the present case, the courts that heard the case attributed the same criminal and civil responsibility to the directors of the media (El Universo) as to the author of the text that gave rise to the complaint of the offended official. 121. In addition to condemning the author of the column, the judicial body, by means of the first instance judgment of July 20, 2011, did the same with Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lappenti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and César Enrique Pérez Barriga, who were part of the executive board of the company El Universo. They were convicted as intervening authors and were sanctioned to three years in prison, as well as to pay in I/A Court H.R., Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 123. 141 142 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 57. 143 Corte IDH, Caso Ivcher Bronstein Vs. Perú. Sentencia de 6 de febrero de 2001. Serie C No. 74, párr. 157. IACHR. Arguments before the Inter-American Court in the case of Kimel v. Argentina. Transcribed in: I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 37. 144 IACHR. Arguments before the Inter-American Court in the Palamara Iribarne case v. Chile. Transcribed in: I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 64. e). 145 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, paras. 128 and 129. 146 26