23 prior censorship. Also, the aim of this provision is to protect and encourage access to information, ideas and artistic expressions of all types and to strengthen pluralist democracy; c. The obligation not to interfere in the enjoyment of the right of access to information of all types extends to the “circulation of information and the exhibition of artistic works that may not be approved personally by those who represent the authority of the State at a certain moment”; d. There are three alternative mechanisms by which restrictions to the exercise of freedom of expression may be imposed: subsequent liability, regulation of the access of minors to public entertainment, and the obligation to prevent the justification of religious hatred. These restrictions may not exceed the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention and may only be applied in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions were established, as stipulated in Article 30 of the Convention; e. Subsequent liability is regulated in Article 13(2) of the Convention and is only admissible in a restricted way, when necessary to ensure respect for the rights or reputation of others. This restriction of the possibility of establishing subsequent liability is set out as a “guarantee of freedom of thought, so that certain people, groups, ideas or mediums of expression are not excluded, a priori, from public debate”. This type of restriction was not used in the instant case, but the cinematographic work was censored before it was exhibited; f. Public entertainment may be subject by law to classification in order to regulate the access of minors, as indicated in Article 13(4) of the Convention. In this case, the Cinematographic Classification Council allowed access to the film to those over 18 years of age. However, following this classification, the domestic courts proceeded to prohibit its exhibition totally; g. Article 13(5) of the Convention establishes the positive obligation of the State to avoid the dissemination of information that could generate illegal actions. This case does not fall within this assumption, since the Martin Scorsese film has been defined as a work of art with a religious content that does not attempt to disseminate propaganda. Moreover, during the actions before the local courts and the procedure before the Commission, the exception established in this article was never invoked. Also, Article 13(5) should be understood within the principle established in Article 13(1); that is to say, that “those who justify religious hatred should be subject to subsequent liability in accordance with the law”; h. The prior censorship imposed on the film “The Last Temptation of Christ” did not occur in the context of the restrictions or causes established in the Convention. Rejection of the exhibition of the film was based on the fact that it would allegedly be offensive to the figure of Jesus Christ and therefore affected those who filed a petition with the judicial system, believers, and “other persons who considered him a model for their way of life”. The prohibition to project the film was based on the alleged defense of the right to honor and reputation of Jesus Christ;