to address the violation and that its application by the competent authority must be effective.169 148. In particular, the effectiveness of the remedy in terms of the protection of Article 25, implies the real possibility of having access to a judicial remedy so that a competent authority capable of issuing a binding decision may determine whether or not there has been a violation of a right that the person claiming the right believes he or she has.170 The effectiveness of the judicial remedy implies that the analysis by the competent authority cannot be reduced to a mere formality, but must examine the reasons invoked by the complainant and expressly state them.171 Likewise, the Court considers that the effectiveness of the remedies must be assessed in each specific case, taking into account whether “there were domestic mechanisms that guaranteed real access to justice to claim reparation for the violation.”172 This Court does not assess the effectiveness of the remedies filed on the basis of an eventual resolution favorable to the victim’s interests.173 149. In the instant case, the Court confirms that Mr. Baraona Bray had access to the judicial remedy of annulment of the first instance ruling issued by the Guarantee Court of Puerto Montt. In its second instance decision, the Supreme Court referred to the infringement of freedom of expression, to “the limits and counterbalances” that this right has in relation to other values at stake, and to the right of recourse of the person affected by the opinion or information expressed, and considered that Mr. Baraona “did not make personal appraisals, but rather assertions, which in no way represented specialized political criticism.” However, the Supreme Court did not consider the scope that the right to freedom of expression has under the American Convention, in accordance with the interpretation provided by this Court. 150. Thus, the Court considers that the decision on the appeal did not include an analysis of the domestic laws that regulate slander and libel in light of the requirements for subsequent liability for the exercise of freedom of expression. In particular, this Court advises that the conventional limits to restrictions on public interest speech were not properly considered. Moreover, the ruling did not take into account that the limits on the criticism of public officials, in the exercise of their duties are broader than the limits of criticism of private individuals. On the contrary, Article 29 of Law No. 19.733, which states that the exercise of freedom of expression could be punished unless it was specialized commentary on political, literary, historical, artistic, scientific, technical and sports criticism, served as a basis for the criminal conviction of Mr. Baraona. 151. On the other hand, the Supreme Court affirmed in its ruling that Carlos Baraona “reported certain aspects, which although public, were a narration of facts that were not reasonably truthful, since they were clearly not proven or corroborated by other information or news sources. It was evident that the defendant exceeded the reasonable and prudent limits of what he recklessly disclosed as true facts - which were false - and in this respect he did not have the constitutional protection that he required, but in addition, he harmed another person, who also had [the right] to honor […].”174 As for the animus injuriandi, the Supreme Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, supra, para. 24, and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 116. Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, para. 24, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449, para. 157. 171 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 96, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2022. Series C No. 463, para. 109. 172 Cf. Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445, para. 78. 173 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 101, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 109. 174 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court, of September 9, 2004, supra. 169 170 44