if appropriate and subject to meeting a series of strict requirements. Thus, Article 13(2) of the American Convention establishes that subsequent liability for the exercise of freedom of expression must meet the following requirements concurrently: (i) it must be previously established by law, both formally and substantively; 84 (ii) it must respond to a purpose permitted by the American Convention, and (iii) it must be necessary in a democratic society (to which end, it must meet the requirements of suitability, necessity and proportionality). 85 72. Regarding strict legality, the Court has established that restrictions must be established previously by law to ensure that they are not left to the discretion of the public authorities. Accordingly, the legal definition of the conduct must be clear and precise, 86 particularly in the case of criminal rather than civil proceedings. 87 The permitted or legitimate purposes are indicated in the said Article 13(2) and they are: (a) respect for the rights or reputation of others, and (b) the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. In addition, restrictions to freedom of expression must be suitable; that is, truly conducive to achieving the legitimately permitted objective. 88 Regarding necessity, the Court has affirmed that, for a restriction of free expression to be compatible with the American Convention, it must be necessary in a democratic society, understanding by “necessary” the existence of an essential social need that would justify the restriction. 89 Thus, the Court must examine the alternatives that existed to achieve the legitimate aim and analyze whether they represented a greater or a lesser harm. 90 Lastly, regarding the proportionality of the measure, the Court has understood that restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of expression must be proportionate to the interest that justifies them and strictly tailored to the achievement of that purpose, interfering as little as possible in the effective enjoyment of the right. 91 In this regard, it is not sufficient that a restriction has a legitimate purpose; rather, the measure in question must respect proportionality when infringing freedom of expression. In other words, “[i]n this last step of the analysis, it is necessary to consider whether the restriction is strictly proportionate so that the sacrifice inherent in it is not exaggerated or disproportionate in relation to the advantages obtained from the and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra, para. 43. Cf. The Word “Laws “ in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC6/86, May 9, 1986. Series A, No. 6, paras. 35 and 37, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 104. 84 85 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 56, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446, para. 104. Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra, para. 56, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 104. 86 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 77, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 105. 87 88 See, mutatis mutandis, Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 107, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, para. 99. See also, expert opinion provided by Joan Barata Mir at the public hearing held on February 14, 2022, during the Court’s 146th regular session. Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra, paras. 41 to 46, and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 124. 89 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 206, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 219. 90 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 123, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 108. 91 23