In this case, the issue in question is not the application of Article 11 of the Convention in relation to the protection of honor and dignity, but of Article 13, in relation to freedom of thought and expression. 129. Given that, under the terms of the Convention, the publication of an article of public interest concerning a public official cannot be considered a criminal offense or a crime against honor, the Court concludes that the fact that such conduct was sanctioned in this case constituted a violation of Article 13(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Tulio Álvarez Ramos. 130. The parties also argued that Mr. Álvarez’s political rights were violated by virtue of the additional penalty of political disqualification ordered by the judgment of the Seventh Trial Court. In this regard, given that the criminal prosecution and the sanction imposed on Mr. Álvarez was considered to violate Article 13 of the Convention, the Court concludes that the additional penalty of restricting his political rights violated Article 23 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 131. As to the argument that the penalty of political disqualification was imposed for a period longer than the duration of the sentence, given the decision by the Professors’ Association of the Central University of Venezuela to not allow Mr. Álvarez to register in its electoral register, the Court notes that this measure was revoked through the amparo granted by the Electoral Chamber of the Supreme Court, and that professor Álvarez was included in the electoral process in which he hoped to participate. Therefore, the application of political disqualification does not appear to have continued beyond the term of the sentence, as alleged by the Commission and the representatives, nor were Mr. Álvarez’s political rights impaired on that occasion. B.4 Conclusions 132. Consequently, the Court concludes that Venezuela violated the right to freedom of expression and political rights, pursuant to Articles 13(1), 13(2) and 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Tulio Álvarez Ramos. Having regard to the foregoing conclusions, the Court does not consider it necessary to rule on the alleged violation of the principle of legality (Article 9) and the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law (Article 2). VIII-2 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL132 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 133. The Commission alleged that the State violated Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention, because it did not provide elements to justify the arrest of one of Mr. Álvarez’s witnesses while he testified during the trial hearing. It argued that this measure had no legal basis, was not necessary or proportionate to achieve the aims of a democratic society and was not justified by the need to safeguard the administration of justice. 134. The Commission recalled that there was no record in the case file to explain, nor did the Venezuelan State explain, the legal basis and well-founded reasons for which Mr. Álvarez was denied access to copies of the videos and interviews used as evidence prior to the start of the oral trial. These declarations formed the basis of the amendment of the criminal 132 Article 8 of the American Convention. 26