68 129. A different threshold of protection should be applied, which is not based on the nature of the subject, but on the characteristic of public interest inherent in the activities or acts of a specific individual. Those individuals who have an influence on matters of public interest have laid themselves open voluntarily to a more intense public scrutiny and, consequently, in this domain, they are subject to a higher risk of being criticized, because their activities go beyond the private sphere and belong to the realm of public debate. 130. Given the foregoing, this Court will now determine whether the criminal sanction imposed on journalist Mauricio Herrera Ulloa was a necessary restriction in a democratic society and therefore compatible with the American Convention. 131. In the instant case, the information reported in the Belgian press about diplomat Félix Przedborski, Costa Rica’s representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, and his alleged illicit activities, drew journalist Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s immediate attention. He reproduced a portion of the news reported in the Belgian press. The Court notes that journalist Herrera Ulloa basically confined himself to reproducing the news reports having to do with a public official’s conduct abroad. 132. This Court must go on record as noting that as a consequence of his actions, Mr. Herrera Ulloa was subjected to criminal prosecution and convicted. Invoking articles 146, 149 and 152 of the Costa Rican Penal Code, the judge ruled that Mr. Herrera Ulloa’s justification defense (exceptio veritatis) had to be disregarded as he had failed to prove that the facts that various European newspapers attributed to Mr. Félix Przedborski were true; instead, the judge wrote, he was only able to show that “questions were raised in the European press about the party filing the criminal complaint.” Thus, the court disallowed the justification defense because the journalist had not proved the veracity of the facts reported in the European newspapers. This standard of proof is an excessive limitation on freedom of expression that does not comport with Article 13(2) of the Convention. 133. The effect of the standard of proof required in the judgment is to restrict freedom of expression in a manner incompatible with Article 13 of the American Convention, as it has a deterrent, chilling and inhibiting effect on all those who practice journalism. This, in turn, obstructs public debate on issues of interest to society. 134. The European Court has held the following in this regard: […] punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person ... would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest. 106 135. The Court therefore finds that the State violated the right to freedom of thought and expression protected under Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, since the restriction on this journalist’s exercise of that right oversteps the boundaries set in that article. 106 Eur. Court H.R., Case of Thoma v. Luxemburg, Judgement of March 29, 2001, para. 62.