67 * 2) * Restrictions on Freedom of Thought and Expression 79. The Court considers it important to restate that the right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right and that Article 13(2) of the Convention provides for the possibility of placing restrictions on freedom of thought and expression by imposing subsequent liability for abuse of this right. The grounds for imposing subsequent liability must be expressly, previously and strictly limited by law; they should be necessary to ensure “respect for the rights or reputations of others” or “the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals,” and should in no way restrict, beyond what is strictly necessary, the full exercise of freedom of expression or become either direct or indirect means of prior censorship.178 Furthermore, the Court has previously pointed out that Criminal Law is the most restrictive and severe means of imposing liability for illegal conduct.179 80. The Court will examine whether the subsequent liability for contempt imposed upon Mr. Palamara-Iribarne by the military criminal court is compatible with Article 13 of the Convention (supra paras. 63(72) to 63(93)). The offense of contempt, with which Mr. Palamara-Iribarne was charged, was defined in Chapter VI of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with felonies and misdemeanors against “public order and security” committed by private individuals. These provisions were in force at the time of the events surrounding the case and were applied to it. 81. The Court notes that Mr. Palamara-Iribarne was acquitted of the charge of contempt by the trial court and said decision was not appealed (supra paras. 63(88) to 63(89)). However, by means of the consultation mechanism, the Navy CourtMartial reversed the trial court’s judgment of acquittal and convicted Mr. PalamaraIribarne of c ontempt, as defined in sections 264(3), 265 and 266 of the Chilean Criminal Code (supra paras. 63(89) to 63(91)). 82. In relation to restrictions on freedom of expression through the imposition of subsequent liability, the Court has held, in previous cases, that it is logical and appropriate that statements concerning public officials and other individuals who perform public services are afforded, as set forth in Article 13(2) of the Convention, greater protection, thus allowing some latitude for broad debate, which is essential for the functioning of a truly democratic system.180 These criteria are applied to the instant case with regard to the criticism or statements on matters of public interest advanced by Mr. Palamara-Iribarne regarding the conduct of the Magallanes Naval Prosecutor within the criminal military proceedings instituted against him for disobedience and breach of military duties. In addition, the facts of this case and the 178 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 172, para. 95; Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 174, para. 120; and Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 172, para. 39. 179 180 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 172, para. 104. Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 172, para. 98; Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 174, para. 128; Case of Ivcher-Bronstein, supra note 173, para. 155.