and material criteria required to be relevant to the public debate. Likewise, the Court notes that in the instant case there is no dispute that the comments made were a matter of public interest.151 Indeed, the Court reiterates that where environmental matters are concerned, the statements in question have a clear public interest, which implies a stricter analysis of the restrictions imposed on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression on environmental matters. 118. In relation to the above, the Court recalls that, in the context of discussion on matters of public interest, the right to freedom of expression not only protects the transmission of statements that are harmless or well received by public opinion, but also those that shock, irritate or disturb public officials or any sector of the population.152 Thus, although Mr. Baraona Bray’s statements were extremely critical of the conduct of Senator SP in relation to the authorities responsible for the conservation of the alerce tree, this does not mean that his speech is unprotected from the perspective of freedom of expression. Expressions that may be shocking or critical are resources or strategies used by human rights and environmental defenders who seek to communicate and raise awareness among the general population. Hence, a statement on a matter of public interest enjoys special protection in view of the importance that this type of discourse has in a democratic society. Given the nature and purpose of the statement, it is inappropriate to require exceptio veritatis in court, since the purpose is to point out a situation of public interest that deserves to be investigated by the relevant authorities. It would be an impossible burden to comply with this requirement in every situation involving allegations related to corruption, misuse of public funds or environmental damage, as in the instant case. Therefore, the Court must consider whether the possible subsequent liabilities applied in the present case complied with the requirements established in Article 13(2) of the Convention. 119. The alleged victim was subjected to criminal proceedings, in which he was found responsible for the crime of serious insults to the detriment of the senator. The Guarantee Court of First Instance of Puerto Montt imposed a suspended prison sentence of 300 days, a fine of 20 monthly tax units, and an accessory penalty of suspension from public office for the period of the sentence and with costs, as contemplated in the Chilean Criminal Code and in Law No. 19.733. The Supreme Court upheld the decision based on the infringement of Senator SP’s right to honor. 120. In this regard, the Court recalls that criminal prosecution is the most restrictive measure to freedom of expression. Therefore, its use in a democratic society should be exceptional and be reserved for those cases in which it is strictly necessary to protect fundamental legal interests from attacks that damage or endanger them, since to do otherwise would result in the abusive exercise of the punitive power of the State.153 In other words, from the array of possible measures to claim subsequent liability for the potential abusive exercise of the right to freedom of expression, criminal prosecution will only be appropriate in those exceptional cases where it is strictly necessary to protect a pressing social need.154 […] those of us who wanted to do something, what we all had in common was having been there, having witnessed this ‘ecocide’, as they call it nowadays.” Cf. Statement rendered by Carlos Baraona Bray before the Court, supra. 151 It should be recalled that illegal logging of the alerce was a subject of strong public debate in Chile and a Commission of Inquiry on illegal logging of the alerce was established in the Chamber of Deputies (supra para. 51). 152 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 126, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 115. 153 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 76, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 117. 154 Cf. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, para. 120, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 117. 37