66 judgment [did] not include any prohibition” to leave the country; it therefore concluded that this prohibition had been “issued as a precautionary measure, in the said proceeding,” and had become “unsustainable” by then. 123. Owing to the circumstances in which the facts of the instant case occurred, the Court considers it necessary to examine in detail whether, by establishing restrictions to Mr. Canese’s right to leave the country, the State complied with the requirements of the legality, necessity and proportionality of the restrictions to the extent necessary in a democratic society; these are inferred from Article 22 of the American Convention. a) Requirement of legality in a democratic society 124. In relation to the requirement of the legality of restrictions to freedom of movement, residence and to leave the country, the Human Rights Committee has indicated that the law itself has to establish the conditions under which these rights may be limited, so that restrictions that are not provided for in the law or are not in conformity with the requirements of Article 12, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would violate those rights. The Committee also stated that, in adopting laws providing for the permitted restrictions, States should always be guided by the principle that the restrictions must not impair the essence of the right, use precise criteria, and not confer unfettered discretionality on those charged with their execution.138 125. First, the Court emphasizes the importance of the exercise of the principle of legality in establishing a restriction of the right to leave the country in a democratic society, given the significant impact that this restriction has on the exercise of personal freedom. Consequently, the State should define precisely and clearly by law, the exceptional circumstances under which a measure such as the restriction to leave the country is admissible. 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 create doubts in those charged with applying the restriction, or the opportunity for them to act arbitrarily and discretionally, interpreting the restriction broadly. This is particularly undesirable in the case of measures that severely affect fundamental attributes, such as freedom.139 126. With regard to the legality of the restriction of the right to leave the country imposed on Mr. Canese, the Court has verified that none of the articles of the 1890 Code of Criminal Procedure establish the prohibition to leave the country without authorization as a precautionary measure. Article 332 of Title XVI of this Code of Criminal Procedure entitled “Detention and preventive detention” established that “[e]xcept in the case of [a] sanction imposed by a judgment, the freedom of the individual may only be restricted by detention or preventive detention.” Also, Article 138 139 U.N. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 27, supra note 135, paras. 12 and 13. Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 108 and 115; Case of Cantoral-Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 157; and Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 121.