whether, in this particular case, the measure met the criteria for the imposition of subsequent liability against the presumed victim, so as to be compatible with the American Convention. B.3.a. Assessment of the statements by Mr. Álvarez 112. Regarding the nature of the article entitled “National Savings Bank of the National Assembly Looted,” published in the newspaper “Así es la Noticia”, the Court wishes to make the following points: i) the article referred to the administration of public funds allocated for the pensions of officials of the National Assembly, ii) it referred to Mr. Lara in the context of his work as a public servant at the head of the National Assembly and, by default, of the National Assembly’s Savings Bank, iii) Mr. Álvarez’s comments were based on a document issued by a State institution. 113. In this regard, the expert opinion included in the case file123 stated that at least three elements must be present for a given article or item of information to be considered part of the public debate, namely: i) the subjective element, in other words, that the person concerned was a public servant at the time when the accusation was made by public means; ii) the functional element, that is, the person was acting in an official capacity in the related facts, and iii) the material element, that is, the matter discussed is of public importance. In this case, the Court finds that these three elements are satisfied because the article i) makes specific reference to Mr. Lara’s position as President of the National Assembly; ii) it refers to Mr. Lara’s duties as a public official, and iii) the management or administration of public funds or resources of the Savings and Social Benefits Bank of the workers of the National Assembly is a matter of public interest. 114. Furthermore, in the context of debate on matters of public interest, the Court’s jurisprudence has established that freedom of expression is not only applicable to information or ideas that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that shock, irritate or disturb public officials or any sector of the population. 124 Thus, the Court has protected other expressions of a similar nature to this case, for example the statements criticizing the actions of a judge in the case of Kimel v. Argentina125 or the use of strong language in the case of Lagos del Campo v Peru.126 115. Thus, the Court’s assessment in this case cannot be any different. Although Mr. Álvarez expressed criticism, this does not imply that his comments are not protected under the terms of the right to freedom of expression. This type of discourse should also be protected, despite being uncomfortable and employing incisive language, especially in a democratic society where criticism leveled at public officials is not only valid but necessary. 116. Finally, in other cases the Court has understood that similar statements are part of the public debate in a democratic society, and require protection in a manner consistent with the principles of democratic pluralism.127 The Court has reaffirmed the protection of freedom of expression in respect of opinions or information on matters in which society has a legitimate interest to keep itself informed, and to know about a matter that has an impact on the functioning of the State, or affects its general rights or interests or has significant consequences.128 Cf. Expert opinion of the expert witness Catalina Botero during the public hearing in this case. Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 126; Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, para. 117; see also ECHR, Case of Castells v. Spain, Judgment of April 23, 1992, No. 11798/85, para. 42. 125 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, paras. 42 and 89 to 90. 126 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, paras. 51, 106 and 112. 127 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 128. 128 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, para. 121; and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 146. 123 124 23