true or false; such an opinion cannot be sanctioned, especially when it is a value judgment on an official act of a public official in the performance of his duty"136. 111. The sentencing ruling also notes the following paragraph: "[t]he Dictator should remember, finally, and this is very important, that with the pardon, in the future, a new president, perhaps his enemy, could take him to a criminal court for ordering fire at will and without warning against a hospital full of civilians and innocent people. Crimes against humanity, lest not forget, do not prescribe." In this regard, the judge believes that the journalist "accuses Correa of being the perpetrator of a crime against humanity." 112. The Commission considers that this mention cannot be considered as the attribution of an offense to the former agent, given that it is a conditional opinion on episodes of public interest, whose meaning divides Ecuadorian society up to the present. Different social and political sectors, as well as journalists and analysts, tend to describe the situation as a protest of a dissatisfied sector of the police, whose virulence increased after the decision adopted by the Ecuadorian president himself to enter in person and without a security strategy to the place of the events, after which he was detained; On the other hand, the narrative of the former government presented these episodes as a coup plot with the aim of, supposedly, displacing the president from power. 113. The existence of an incursion by Special Forces of the police ordered by the President, as well as the balance of 10 people killed and 300 injured as a final result of the crisis, is not disputed either. 114. The Commission considers that the opinions and value judgments included in the Palacio column refer to episodes that generated narratives and conflicting interpretations and that polarized society, linked to the actions of who exercised the highest public function during an institutional crisis. As the Commission has repeatedly mentioned, "political criticism often involves value judgments"137. The InterAmerican Court has indicated that "within the framework of public debate, the margin of acceptance and tolerance of criticism by the State itself, public officials, politicians, and even individuals who carry out activities subject to public scrutiny must be much greater than that of individuals"138. 115. As the IACHR has stated, "[t]he functioning of democracy requires the highest possible level of public discussion on the functioning of society and the State in all its aspects, that is, on matters of public interest”139. In this regard, it has also stated that "[i]n a democratic and pluralist system, the actions and omissions of the State and its officials must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny, not only by the internal control bodies, but also by the press and public opinion”140. 116. In the case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, the Inter-American Court considered the issue of value judgments on cases of public interest and accusations made through the press. Specifically, it considered in the case that the complaint about the use of an illegal interception of a private conversation of a lawyer by the Attorney General of the Nation, in a context of intense questions about the faculty of the state official to order interception, was a matter of current public interest. In this regard, the Inter-American Court noted that, "the manner in which a high-ranking public official, such as the Attorney General of the Nation, performs the functions that have been assigned to him by law, in this case the interception of telephone communications, and if he carries them out in accordance with the provisions of the national legal order, it is of public interest nature. Within the series of public questions that were being made to the former Attorney General by various State authorities, such as the Ombudsman and the President of the Supreme Court, the victim, in a press conference, stated that said public official had recorded a telephone conversation and had informed the Board of Directors of the National Bar Association [...]. The [Inter-American] Court considers that Mr. Tristán Donoso made statements about facts that were of the greatest public interest in the context of an intense public debate 136 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 93. 137 IACHR. Annual Report 1994. Chapter V: Report on the Compatibility of “Desacato” Laws with the American Convention on Human Rights. Title III. OEA/Ser. L/V/II.88. doc. 9 rev. February 17, 1995, pages 210 to 223. Annex D. I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 104. 138 IACHR. Annual Report 2009. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Inter-American Legal Framework of the Right to Freedom of Expression). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 51. December 30, 2009. Para. 33. 139 IACHR. Annual Report 2009. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Inter-American Legal Framework of the Right to Freedom of Expression). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 51. December 30, 2009. Para. 33. 140 25