16 sanction.47 Thus, the codification of a crime shall be stated expressly, accurately, taxatively and previously, even more so when criminal law is the most restrictive and severe means to establish liabilities for illicit behavior, taking into account that the legal framework shall provide juridical certainty to its citizens.48 56. In this case, the Court observes that the criminal codification of Article 505 of the Organic Code of Military Justice,49 does not establish the elements that may offend, slander, or disparage, and it does not specify whether it is important that the active subject attribute facts that damage the honor or whether it suffices simply to give an offensive or disparaging opinion, without attributing any illicit acts, for example, for the imputation of the crime. The rule does not establish whether an injury-causing, offensive, or disparaging statement may be made before the passive subject or third parties. Namely, this Article responds to a description that is vague and ambiguous and it does not specify clearly the typical forum for a criminal behavior, which could lead to broad interpretations, allowing the determined behaviors to be penalized incorrectly by using the criminal codification. 50 The ambiguity in the text of this criminal codification raises doubts and opens possibilities for the abuse of discretion by the authority, particularly undesirable when the criminal liabilities of individuals shall be established and it is penalized in a manner that seriously affects fundamental goods such as freedom. This article is limited to foreseeing the sanction, without taking into account the specific injury of causing discredit, damaging the good reputation or prestige, or causing damage to the detriment of the passive subject. Since it does not specify the injury required, such law allows that the subjectivity of the offended party determine the existence of crime, even when the active subject did not have the intent to injure, offend, or disparage the passive subject. This text is particularly forceful when, according to the statements by the expert proposed by the State in the public hearing of this case, “there is no legal definition of military honor” in Venezuela.51 57. It results from the above mentioned, that Article 505 of the Organic Code of Military Justice does not strictly limit the elements of the criminal behavior, nor does it consider the existence of injury, resulting in a codification that is too vague and ambiguous in its formulation to comply with the legality requirements of Article 9 of the Convention and the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Convention regarding the imposition of further liabilities. 58. In view of the above, the Court considers that the criminal codification, Article 505 of the Organic Code of Military Justice, violates Articles 9, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. a.2) Purpose of the restriction and suitability of the criminal way 59. The Commission pointed out that “[i]n this case, further liabilities were applied to Mr. Usón Ramírez [for exercising his freedom of thought and expression] with a purpose that cannot be considered legitimate, since any further liabilities under the Convention allow for the protection of the honor and reputation of a civil servant or any other person, but it is 47 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 126. 48 Cf. Case of Kimel, supra note 41, para. 63. 49 Said Article states that “[h]e who slanders, offends, or disparages the National Armed Forces or one of its entities will incur the sanction of 3 to 8 years of prison” (supra para. 38). 50 51 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 47, para. 92. Expert testimony of Ángel Alberto Bellorín given at the Inter-American Court in a public hearing celebrated on April 1, 2009.