The need to protect the right to have one’s honor respected and one’s dignity recognized, as well as other rights which might be affected by the abusive exercise of freedom of thought and expression, requires due compliance with the limitations imposed by the Convention in this regard. These limitations must be in accordance with strict proportionality criteria. 6 In another case (in which the dispute arose between the right to privacy and freedom of expression), the Court stated: In this context, the Court must find a balance between privacy and freedom of expression that, without being absolute, are two fundamental rights guaranteed in the American Convention and of great importance in a democratic society. The Court recalls that each fundamental right must be exercised respecting and safeguarding the other fundamental rights. In this process of harmonization, the State plays a central role seeking to establish the necessary responsibilities and penalties to achieve this end. The need to protect the right that could be harmed by an abusive exercise of freedom of expression calls for due observance of the limits established in this regard by the Convention itself. 7 13. In the cases submitted to the Court to date, the decision adopted has favored freedom of expression, based on a reasoning that, on the one hand, underlines the particular importance of this freedom for the functioning of a democratic society and, on the other hand, reduces the importance of the protection of honor in the case of public officials or public figures, provided that matters of public interest are involved. Particular importance of freedom of expression 14. The Court has emphasized the particular importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society in the following terms, which I share: In its case law the Court has established that the social media play an essential role as vehicles for the exercise of the social dimension of freedom of expression in a democratic society and, for this reason, it is indispensable that they reflect the most diverse information and opinions. The said media, as essential instruments of freedom of thought and expression, must exercise their social function with responsibility. Given the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society and the elevated responsibility that this entails for professionals involved in the area of social communication, the State must not only reduce to a minimum the restrictions on the circulation of information, but must also ensure, insofar as possible, the balanced participation of diverse information in the public debate, encouraging the pluralism of information. Consequently, the flow of information must be regulated by equity. It is in these terms that the protection of the human rights of the individual in the face of the power of the media, and the attempt to ensure structural conditions that allow the equitable expression of ideas can be explained. 8 Lessening the importance of the protection of honor 15. In addition, the Court – in case law that I endorse – has indicated repeatedly that, when public officials or public figures are involved and the statements to which the case refers relates to matters of public interest, the intensity of the protection of honor is lessened. In particular, in the Kimel case, it stated: 6 Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 56. 7 Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 50. 8 Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, paras. 44 and 45. 4