20 76. The Commission indicated that “the application of Article 505 of the Organic Code of Military Justice, in this specific case, was openly disproportionate.” Accoding to the Commission, “the comments made by Mr. Usón Ramírez about the events […] that occurred in the punishment cells in Fuerte Mara represented the exercise of his right to have his own thoughts about a event of public interest, to express such thought by issuing an opinion and making comments on certain technical aspects related to one of the versions in the media about the possible origin of the fire in the punishment cell.” Therefore, “the opinions given [by Mr. Usón Ramírez] regarding [those] facts that had move[d] society [should be] protected to a higher degree.” 77. In turn, the representatives alleged that “[t]he comments by [Mr. Usón Ramírez], made in the Television interview ‘La Entrevista’ were limited to making comments on information of public interest, in relation to the soldiers who were injured or dead in military installations while they were in a punishment cell under State custody. According to the representatives, “the society had the right to know why those soldiers were punished, what instance decided their sanction, which were their detention conditions, how a cell could catch fire when no flammable material was allowed in, or why the cell caught fire so quickly and could not be controlled.” Likewise, the representatives alleged that “[when] resorting to a criminal sanction as severe as the sanction imposed on [Mr.] Usón [Ramírez] (five years and six months in prison), there being other alternative measures such as the right to correct the falsity or reply, or monetary penalties, it is clearly disproportionate and may be qualified as a serious affront to freedom of expression,” particularly because “given the public interest at stake, the importance of the satisfaction of the good could not be imposed on the freedom of expression, which is of a preferential nature.” 78. The State pointed out “it is clear that [Mr.] Usón Ramírez made a judgmental assessment and attributed liabilities to the National Armed Forces in a specific punishable fact which was the object of a criminal investigation in the common jurisdiction; his opinions questioned the honorableness of the Armed Forces, creating a negative impact on the society in general of the image, prestige, and credibility of the military institution; this alters the harmonious relationship that must prevail between the Armed Forces and civil society to achieve and keep public order and security in the country.” “Due to that, it may be fully affirmed that the restriction applied in this case is proportional to the interest justifying it.” 79. At this stage of the analysis, whether the restriction is strictly proportional must be considered so that the inherent sacrifice of such restriction is not exaggerated or disproportionate to the advantages obtained through such limitation.61 The Court has adopted this method when pointing out the following: • For restrictions to be compatible with the Convention, such restrictions shall be justified on the basis of collective objectives which shall, due to their importance, clearly prevail on the social need to be fully entitled to the right that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees and do not set any limits to the right established in such Article beyond what is strictly necessary. This means that the restriction shall be proportional to the interest that justifies it and shall be closely adjusted to the achievement of such legitimate objective, interfering as little as possible with the effective exercise of the right to freedom 62 of expression. 61 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 56, para. 93; Case of Kimel, supra note 41, para. 83, and Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 46, para. 98. See also, Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 228. 62 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 39, para. 46; Case of Kimel, supra note 41, para. 83, and Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 47, para. 85.