opinions due to fear of punishment, and can lead to broad judicial interpretations that unduly restrict freedom of expression; therefore, the State must specify the conduct that may give rise to subsequent liability, in order to protect the free expression of disagreement and protest over the actions of the authorities. 79. In the instant case, the elements of the crime at issue do not include safeguards or exceptions that allow for the broadest possible debate about matters of public interest and about public servants and the exceptional use of the criminal law to establish subsequent liability for speech that is specially protected by the right to freedom of expression. On the contrary, the State has asserted to the Commission that the right to honor “is an absolute right” not subject to limitations under the Venezuelan Constitution and case law. Furthermore, it is clear that this offense has continued to be used in criminal cases against journalists who discuss matters of public interest or about public servants104. 80. In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the ambiguity and breadth of Article 444 of the Criminal Code applied in this case results in a breach of the requirement of strict legality in the imposition of restrictions on the freedom of expression of Tulio Álvarez, thereby violating Articles 13.1 and 13.2 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. Similarly, because this violation stems from the application of a law that fails to meet the requirements of strict legality and, by virtue of the principle of iura novit curia, the State also violated Articles 9 and 2 of the Convention. 81. Notwithstanding the above, the Commission finds it proper to examine whether the restriction in this case sought to satisfy a legitimate and compelling objective of the State and whether it was strictly necessary for the accomplishment of this objective. The purpose of this is to systematically and thoroughly discuss the infringements of the right to freedom of expression presented in the instant case. b) Legitimate aim of the restriction 82. The second element of the criterion of necessity refers to the identification of the aim of the restriction on freedom of expression. The limitations imposed on freedom of expression must pursue the accomplishment of some of the compelling objectives established exhaustively in the American Convention. According to Article 13.2 of the American Convention, the protection of the honor and reputation of others may be grounds for establishing subsequent liability for the abusive exercise of freedom of expression,105 which means that persons who believes that they are victims of such abuse may avail themselves of the judicial remedies available for their protection.106 In this matter, the IACHR observes that the alleged victim issued statements that could have offended and affected the reputation of the claimant, representative Willian Lara. The IACHR also observes the conviction of Tulio Alberto Álvarez for the offense of “ongoing aggravated defamation” sought to protect the reputation and honor of an individual.107 The Commission thus finds that the second element of the test has been met. c) Strict necessity and proportionality of the restriction [… continuation] Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter II (Evaluation of the State of Freedom of Expression in the Hemisphere). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 51. December 30, 2009. Para. 496. 104 See for example, IACHR. Order 43/15. MC 179/15 – Miguel Henrique Otero et al, Venezuela. November 9, 2015. I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para.71; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 118. 105 106 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 55; Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111. para. 101. 107 Annex 2. Seventh Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Judgment of Conviction in Case No.7-246-2004, Case File IV. February 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner received on September 7, 2006.