honor has been affected to have recourse to the judicial mechanisms that the State has established to protect it. 235 In addition, Article 11(3) of the Convention specifically imposes on States the duty to provide the protection of the law against such interference. The State is obliged to guarantee to those who feel that their right to honor has been harmed, the appropriate judicial mechanisms to establish the corresponding responsibilities and punishments. If it does not do so, the State could incur international responsibility. Consequently, the State has the obligation to ensure the right to honor and reputation by positive actions, which may entail, in some cases, the adoption of measures designed to ensure this right, protecting it from the interference of public authorities, as well as of private individuals or institutions, including the media. 236 126. The Court reiterates its consistent case law, to the effect that “it does not find that a punishment in relation to the expression of information or opinions is contrary to the Convention.” 237 Both the civil and the criminal jurisdiction are legitimate, under certain circumstances, and insofar as they meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, as a means for the subsequent imposition of liability for the expression of information or opinions that affect honor or reputation. 238 While Article 13(2)(a) of the Convention establishes that “respect for the rights or reputations of others” may be grounds for the subsequent imposition of liability for the exercise of freedom of expression, 239 Article 11 of the Convention establishes the protection of the honor and dignity of everyone (supra para. 124). Consequently, as it has established in other cases, the protection of the honor and reputation of everyone constitutes a legitimate purpose for the subsequent imposition of liability pursuant to this provision of the Convention. 240 This Court has also established that the criminal jurisdiction may be appropriate to safeguard the right that it is intended to protect, to the extent that it is able to contribute to achieve this objective. 241 127. Both freedom of expression and the right to honor, which are both rights protected by the Convention, are extremely important; hence both rights must be guaranteed in a way that ensures that they coexist harmoniously. 242 Each fundamental right must be exercised respecting and safeguarding the other fundamental rights. The State plays a central role in this process of harmonization, endeavoring to establish the necessary responsibilities and 235 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 101, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra, para. 46. 236 Cf. Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 49. 237 Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 78, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 55. 238 Cf. Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 49 239 The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has ruled similarly. See, for example, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, A/HRC/14/23, 4 June 2012, para. 80; Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Ambeyi Ligabo, ‘‘Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development,” A/HRC/7/14, February 28, 2008, para. 39, and Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Ambeyi Ligabo, implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled “Human Rights Council,” A/HRC/4/27, 2 January 2007, para. 46. 240 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 120, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 53. 241 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 78, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 53. 242 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 51, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 50. 51