57 165. The “need” and, therefore, the legality of the restrictions to the freedom of expression based on Article 13(2) of the American Convention, will depend on if they are oriented to satisfying an imperative public interest, which clearly predominates over the social need of the complete enjoyment of the right guaranteed in Article 13. Among several options to reach this objective, the one that least restricts the right protected is the one that must be chosen.115 The above applies to laws, as well as administrative decisions, and acts, and acts or decisions of any other nature, that is, to all demonstration of state power. 166. In the present case, in the year 2000 the Director of the Criminal Center of Tela prohibited the Garifuna population of said criminal center, among which Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez was included, from speaking their mother tongue (supra para. 54(49)). Said measure denied the alleged victim from expressing himself in the language of his choice. This measure was not justified by the State. Said prohibition infringes the detainee’s individuality and does not obey to security conditions or treatment needs. 167. The penitentiary authorities exercise a strong control over the people subject to their custody. Therefore, the State must guarantee the existence of adequate conditions so that the person deprived of his liberty may develop a decent life, ensuring him the exercise of the rights whose restriction is not a necessary consequence of the deprivation of liberty, pursuant to the rules that are characteristic of a democratic society.116 168. The Court considers that the observance of rules in the collective treatment of the detainees within a criminal center, does not give the State, in the exercise of its power to punish, the legal authority to limit, in an unjustified manner, the freedom of the people to express themselves through any means and in the language chosen by them. 169. According to the facts of this case, the prohibition was issued regarding the native language of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, which is the form of expression of the minority to which the alleged victim belongs. Therefore the prohibition acquires a special seriousness, since the mother tongue represents an element of identity of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez as a Garifuna. In this way, the prohibition affected his personal dignity as a member of that community. 170. This Tribunal has reiterated that the peremptory legal principle of the equal and effective protection of the law and non-discrimination determines that the States must abstain from producing regulations that are discriminatory or have discriminatory effects on certain groups of the population when exercising their rights. Moreover, States must combat discriminatory practices and must adopt the measures needed to ensure the effective right to equal protection for all individuals before the law.117 115 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 15, para. 85; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 112, para. 96, and Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 112, paras. 121 and 123. 116 Cf. Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 7, para. 221; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 93, para. 95, and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 93, para. 118. 117 Cf. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 15, para. 141; Case of Yatama, supra note 109, para. 185, and Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003, Series A No. 18, para. 88.