Necessity of the measure 54. Since its first decision on the matter the Court has adopted the standard that for a restriction to freedom of expression to be compatible with the Convention, it must be necessary in a democratic society, "necessary" being the existence of a pressing social need to justify the restriction. 46 55. Previously, the Court ruled that the State has to provide people the means to establish the responsibilities and penalties as may be necessary to respect and safeguard fundamental rights. In its jurisprudence, the Court has examined cases in which they discussed the need for criminal sanctions, and it has established that “it may not deem any criminal sanction regarding the right to inform or give one’s opinion to be contrary to the provisions of the Convention.” 47 56. In a similar vein, the Court also considers a civil action concerning the expression of information or opinions that affect the private life or privacy to be contrary to the Convention. However, this possibility should be carefully analyzed, considering the conduct displayed by the person making the statements, the characteristics of the damage allegedly caused, and other information that demonstrates the need to resort to the civil forum. Both pathways, under certain circumstances and to the extent that they meet certain requirements, are legitimate. 57. In its decision of September 25, 2001, the Supreme Court did not establish specific facts that it considered affected Mr. Menem's private life and that, in its opinion, generated the responsibility of the journalists, but it said the "factual circumstances had been extensively outlined in previous instances" and what remained was to resolve the tension between both constitutional rights. 58. From that decision, it would appear that "family matters," the disclosure of which constituted a violation to the privacy of Mr. Menem in this case pursuant to the Supreme Court are: a) the alleged family ties; b) the attitude of his ex-wife in connection with such a relationship, and c) images and “names” of "minor children" with exposure of “affiliation” issues of “these children” (supra para. 39). This Court finds it appropriate to recall that Mr. Menem sued only in his own right (supra para. 37), so it does not correspond to rule on any interference with the private lives of third parties. 59. The Court considers that the standards used regarding the protection of freedom of expression in cases of the rights to honor and reputation are applicable, where appropriate, in cases such as this. Both rights are protected under the same 46 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, supra note 36, paras. 41 a 46. In this last paragraph, the Court noted: It is important to note that the European Court of Human Rights, in interpreting Article 10 of the European Convention, concluded that "necessary," while not synonymous with "indispensable," implied "the existence of a 'pressing social need'" and that for a restriction to be "necessary" it is not enough to show that it is "useful," "reasonable" or "desirable." […].This conclusion, which is equally applicable to the American Convention, suggests that the "necessity" and, hence, the legality of restrictions imposed under Article 13(2) on freedom of expression, depend upon a showing that the restrictions are required by a compelling governmental interest[.]” Similarly, Cf. TEDH, Case of Editions Plon v. France, Judgment May 18, 2004, para. 42 and Case of MGN Limited v The United Kingdom, Judgment January 18, 2011, para. 139. 47 Cf. Case of Kimel V. Argentina, supra note 38, paras. 55 and 78. 20