safeguarding other fundamental rights. Therefore, the Court has stated that “the resolution of any conflict arising between two rights requires weighing one against the other and, to this end, examining each case in accordance with its specific characteristics and circumstances, considering the existence and extent of the elements on which the decision is based.”134 107. In this regard, the right to reply or to make a correction, provided for in Article 14 of the Convention, may be an appropriate means to protect the right to honor of a person who believes that he or she has been harmed by inaccurate or offensive information. Thus, the Court has held that “[t]he inescapable relationship between these articles can be deduced from the nature of the rights recognized therein since, by regulating the application of the right of reply or correction, the State Parties must respect the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 13. They may not, however, interpret the right to freedom of expression so broadly as to negate the right of reply proclaimed in Article 14(1).”135 108. In this harmonization process, the State has the primary duty to seek to establish the responsibilities and sanctions that may be necessary to achieve this purpose.136 Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is important to remember that the Court has indicated that in order to determine the compatibility with the Convention of a restriction to freedom of expression that infringes on the right to honor, it is of vital importance to analyze whether the statements made are in the public interest, since in these cases the judge must assess with special care the need to limit freedom of expression.137 Accordingly, for a given report or information to become part of the public debate, at least three elements must be present, namely: a) a subjective element, that is, that the person is a public official at the time of the complaint made by public media; b) a functional element, that is, that the person has acted in an official capacity in the related events; and c) a material element, that is, that the subject matter is of public relevance. According to the standards established by the Court, access to information on activities and projects that could have an impact on the environment is a matter of clear public interest, and therefore enjoys special protection due to its importance in a democratic society.138 The determination of the foregoing has consequences on the analysis of the conventionality of the restriction of the right to freedom of expression, because statements related to matters of public interest enjoy greater protection in order to encourage democratic debate.139 109. In effect, the use of criminal law to impose subsequent liability for statements made in the media on matters of public interest would directly or indirectly constitute intimidation which, ultimately, would limit freedom of expression and would impede public scrutiny of unlawful conduct, such as acts of corruption, abuse of authority etc. This would undoubtedly weaken public control over the State’s powers, causing grave damage to democratic pluralism. In other words, the protection of honor through criminal law, which may be legitimate in other cases, is not consistent with the Convention in the previously described scenario.140 134 73. Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 51, and Case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 135 Cf. Enforceability of the Right to Reply or Correction (Arts. 14(1), 1(1) and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-7/86 of August 29, 1986. Series A No. 7. para. 25, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 103. 136 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 56, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra, para. 112. 137 Cf. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 145, and Case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 74. 138 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, supra, para. 214. 139 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 128, and Case of Moya Chacón v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 74. 140 Cf. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 20, 2019, para. 122, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 118. 34