23 91. The opinion expressed by Mr. Kimel had no bearing on the complaining judge’s personal life, nor did it impute an illegal conduct, but referred to his handling of the case. 92. The Court notes that Mr. Kimel made a reconstruction of the judicial investigation into the massacre and, based on that, he issued a critical value judgment on the performance of the Judiciary members during the last military dictatorship in Argentina. At the public hearing in the instant case (supra para. 9), Mr. Kimel highlighted that the text in which he mentioned the complaining judge was “a paragraph which had to be part of the book, as, despite its brevity, contained significant information: it described the performance of the members of the Argentine Judiciary during the tragic years of the military dictatorship, which was essential to conduct an investigation into the murder of the five clergymen.” Mr. Kimel did not use excessive language and based his opinion on the events verified by the journalist himself. 93. The opinions expressed by Mr. Kimel can neither be deemed to be true nor false. As such, an opinion cannot be subjected to sanctions, even more so where it is a value judgment on the actions of a public official in the performance of his duties. In principle, truthfulness or falseness may only be established in respect of facts. Hence, the evidence regarding value judgments may not be examined according to truthfulness requirements.71 94. Taking the foregoing into consideration, the Court concludes that the violation of Mr. Kimel’s right to freedom of thought and expression has been overtly disproportionate as excessive in relation to the alleged impairment of the right to have one’s honor respected in the instant case. * * * 95. In view of the arguments put forward in this chapter and taking into consideration the acknowledgement of facts and the acquiescence made by the State, the Court finds that the State has violated the right to freedom of thought and expression enshrined in Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the American Convention, in relation to the general duties set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Kimel. VII ARTICLE 8 (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL)72 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 96. The Commission argued that the criminal proceedings brought against the victim extended for almost nine years; that the case was not a complex one, as “there was no plurality of parties to the proceedings” and that the evidence consisted basically of Mr. Kimel’s book; that “the case file contains no evidence that Mr. Kimel had engaged in any conduct incompatible with his status as an indicted defendant or hindered the processing of the case;” and that “the judicial authorities had failed to act with due diligence and promptness.” The representatives submitted arguments to the same effect and further argued that “since offenses against the honor are privately actionable offenses, they are subject to a simplified procedure which involves no investigation stage.” As previously 71 Cf. ECHR, Case of Lingens v. Austria, Judgment of July 8, 1986, Series A no. 103, § 46. 72 The relevant portion of Article 8.1(1) of the Convention provides as follows: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.