34 defense of a right that is inherent to the individual was attempted by affecting another right inherent to the individual in the person of the victim; this line of thought can only be admitted in the event of the so-called grounds for justification; none of which applies in the 99 instant case. 108. At the time of the events, the Penal Code (supra para. 52), established, among other provisions regarding crimes against honor, as follows: Section 172. Any person who falsely accuses another of committing a punishable act will be subject to a 90 to 180 days’ fine. 2) Freedom of thought and expression 109. As regards the scope of freedom of expression, in its decisions the Court has repeatedly held that those who enjoy the protection of the Convention have the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, and to receive and have access to the information and ideas disclosed by others.100 110. The foregoing notwithstanding, freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Article 13(2) of the Convention, which prohibits prior censorship, also provides for the possibility to impose liability, as appropriate, in the event of an abusive exercise of this right. These restrictions are exceptional in nature and should not limit, unless strictly necessary, the free exercise of freedom of expression and become a direct or indirect method of prior censorship.101 111. Furthermore, Article 11 of the Convention provides that all persons have the right to have their honor respected and their dignity recognized. This gives rise to restrictions to the powers of individuals and the State. So, all persons who consider their honor to have been affected may lawfully resort to the judicial authorities provided by the State for protection of their individual rights.102 112. This fundamental right must be exercised in a context of respect and safeguard of all other fundamental rights. In this process for harmonization, the State plays a crucial role as it seeks to define the responsibilities and penalties that might be necessary to such effect.103 The need to protect the rights to honor and reputation, and other rights that may be affected by abuses in the exercise of freedom of expression calls for proper compliance with the limits imposed in that regard by the Convention itself. 99 Cf. 2nd Judgment No. 40 passed by the Segundo Tribunal Superior de Justicia [Superior Court of Justice Number Two] on April 1, 2005 supra note 98, folio 1950). 100 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Articles 13 and 29 of the American Convention of Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, dated November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 30; Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para 77; and Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 78, 53. 101 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. supra note 79, para. 120; Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 79; and Case of Kimel supra note 16, para. 54. 102 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. supra note 16, para. 101; and Case of Kimel supra note 78, para. 55. 103 Cf. Case of Kimel, supra note 78, para. 75.