3 limitations. Beyond these limitations, illegality makes its way, in which case it should be prevented and punished with the appropriate mechanisms available in a democratic State, which is the guarantor of the values and principles whose protection is a matter of concern for both the individuals and society and which bind the actions of the State itself. Democracy does not imply tolerance or leniency for illegal conducts, but rationality. This is what, in essence, the general and special restrictions provided for by the American Convention refer to: the former in Articles 30 and 32(2), the latter in rules regarding certain rights and freedoms, among which is Article 13. 11. It cannot be ignored that in today’s world, factual powers have developed and grown along with formal powers and even above them, which may have or do have such devastating effects on the legally protected interests and rights of individuals as the direct actions of public authorities may have in the traditional sense of the expression. Hence the shift in the discussion regarding the individuals bound by constitutional values and principles, which also extend, under the appropriate forms, to the international domain: they link all individuals, whether public or private, as they are necessary conditions for life itself and the quality of life of all individuals, who are to be protected from both formal or informal, collective or individual powers. 12. As regards the issue I mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, it is to be noted that the matter of the international horizontal protection still requires an in-depth discussion by the Inter-American Court, which, notwithstanding, has already clearly determined that it is incumbent upon the State to ensure the effectiveness of human rights in the development of social relationships among the individuals, and that its failure to do so entails non-compliance with individual rights, non-fulfillment of public duties and the international responsibility of the State as a result of its failure to perform its duty to ensure the rights of the individuals who are under its jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 13. It is quite interesting to go deeper into the analysis of these issues, which are so relevant these days in view of the withdrawal of the political power, which is justified on the grounds that the excessive powers the State has should, instead, be kept by society. This entails the extremely serious danger –the applications of which are quite evident- of depriving the State of some of its duties, with the resulting impairment of the (effective) rights of those who cannot resist by themselves the force of markets and factual powers. Now, I consider that the case of Kimel is not the natural space to discuss this issue –though I recognize its importance-, as its purpose is not the discussion of the exercise of pressing factual powers over the rights and interests of the individuals, but the performance of formal public actions of the State through its jurisdictional and punitive powers. 14. In the case of Kimel, the State itself has admitted that resorting to criminal proceedings to punish the author of a book wherein he expressed his opinion on the actions of a judicial officer in the performance of his duties was excessive or immoderate. In fact, it stated that “imposing a criminal penalty on Eduardo Kimel constituted a violation of his right to freedom of thought and expression as enshrined in Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (para. 18 of the Judgment rendered in the case of Kimel). Such acknowledgement by the State (which does not exclude the analysis and assessment by the Court of the facts submitted thereto, as should be done in accordance the characteristics and purposes of international proceedings on human rights, in which the principle of substantive or procedural dispositivity does not preclude jurisdictional functions, whose impelling force derives