39 from fleeing from the criminal investigation against him. Moreover, the State argued that Mr. Alibux did not file an appeal in regard to the restriction of the right to leave the country. B. Considerations of the Court 129. In this section, the Court will examine the alleged restriction of the right to leave the country imposed on Mr. Alibux on January 3, 2003, in accordance with Article 22 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the American Convention. 130. The Court found that on January 3, 2003, while he was at the airport in Paramaribo, Mr. Alibux was restricted from leaving the country for a four-day trip for alleged personal reasons. As reported by the representative of the alleged victim during the hearing before the Court, while in the departure gate, military police informed Mr. Alibux that by way of a phone call they had been ordered by the Procurator General to assure that he not leave country. In regard to the restriction, the Court finds that Mr. Alibux did not appeal this in domestic courts (supra para. 44). 131. In this regard, Article 22(2) provides that “[e]very person has the right lo leave any country freely, including his own,” and Article 22(3) states that: “the exercise of the foregoing rights may be restricted only pursuant to a law to the extent necessary in a democratic society to prevent crime or to protect national security, public safety, public order, public morals, public health, or the rights or freedoms of others.” 132. In this sense, the Court has established that the right to movement and residence, including the right to leave the country, may be restricted, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 22(3) and 30 of the Convention. 129 Notwithstanding, to establish such restrictions, State’s must comply with the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality.130 133. Moreover, the Court considered that “In order to guarantee human rights, it is therefore essential that state actions affecting basic rights not be left to the discretion of the government but, rather, that they be surrounded by a set of guarantees designed to ensure that the inviolable. Perhaps the most important of these guarantees is that restrictions to basic rights only be established by a law passed by the Legislature in accordance with the Constitution.”131 134. In particular, the Court has noted that the State must define specifically and establish by law the exceptions by which a measure such as the restriction from leaving a country can exist. As such, “the lack of legal regulation prevents such restrictions from being applied, because neither their purpose nor the specific circumstances under which it is necessary to apply the restriction to comply with some of the objectives indicated in Article 22(3) of the Convention have been defined. It also prevents the defendant from submitting any arguments he deems pertinent concerning the imposition of this measure. Yet, when the restriction is established by law, its regulation should lack any ambiguity so that it does not 129 Case of Ricardo Canese V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 117. Moreover, Cf. The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6. 130 131 Case of Ricardo Canese, supra, para. 123. The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 22.