The Court also indicated in the Judgment 368 that “[f]reedom of expression is not an absolute right,” that “[t]his freedom may be subject to conditions and even limitations, 369 in particular when it interferes with other rights guaranteed by the Convention” 370 and, in another ruling, it stated that “[t]hese limitations are exceptional in nature and should not prevent, beyond what is strictly necessary, the full exercise of freedom of expression and become a direct or indirect means of prior censorship.” 371 These assertions in the Court’s case law signify that, in relation to the instant case, it should be understood that Article 13 of the Convention admits that the exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression is subject to the subsequent imposition of liability, provided that this is necessary and, consequently, exceptional, to ensure respect for the rights or reputation of others and does not constitute, in reality, an instrument of direct or indirect censorship of the exercise of the said right. B. Purpose of this case The foregoing reveals that this case does not consist in determining whether or not the right to the protection of honor and dignity was violated, 372 a right recognized in Article 11 of the Convention, 373 but rather whether there was a violation of Article 13 of this instrument. First, because the specific object and purpose of each of these articles is different, as regards this case. Thus, while the specific object and purpose of Article 11 is to ensure the right to the protection of the law against unlawful attacks on the honor or reputation of the individual, that of Article 13 is not only that the liability mentioned must be explicitly established by law, but also that it is necessary to ensure respect for the rights or the reputation of others. Consequently, in the instant case, the right of the complainants to sue Messrs. Mémoli in the proceeding held in the domestic sphere was acknowledged. However, in the proceedings before the Court it was not discussed whether the statements made by Messrs. Mémoli constituted an unlawful attack on the complainants according to the said Article 11, nor was it requested that a violation of this article be declared and, evidently, no ruling was made to this effect. Hence, in this litigation it was not a question of deciding a conflict between the right established in the said Article 11 and the right contemplated in Article 13 of the Convention. 374 of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 47. 368 Para. 123 of the Judgment. 369 Para. 123 of the Judgment, citing: Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 36, and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238, para. 43. 370 Para. 123 of the Judgment. 371 Para. 123 of the Judgment, citing: Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 120, and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 43. 372 Paras. 124 to 126 of the Judgment. 373 Article 11 of the Convention establishes that: “1. Everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. 3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” 374 Para. 118 of the Judgment. 4