24 91. The State pointed out that “General [now retired] Usón [Ramírez] attributed liabilities to the National Armed Forces in his judgmental assessment in a specific punishable event that was the object of criminal investigation under common jurisdiction; such opiniones put into question the honor of the Armed Forces, influencing its image negatively, prestige and credibility of the military institution vis-à-vis society in general; this alters the harmonious relation that shall prevail between the Armed Forces and the civil society to achieve and keep public order and national security.” To that end, the State highlighted that “there is a close relation between safeguarding the honor and reputation of the institution of the National Armed Forces […] and keeping national security.” “The mission of the National Armed Forces consists of protecting and ensuring protection to the national community; therefore fullfilling this mission justifies setting limits to freedom of expression.” Thus, it pointed out that “it is not by chance that the crime of slander against the Armed Forces is set forth in chapter IV of the Military Justice Organic Code as a “Crimes against Order and Security of the Armed Forces.” To sum up, the State indicated that “any remarks whose purpose is to undermine the credibility of the military institution in the eyes of the population and the trust of the members in their superiors, directly affects the security of the country and requires effective condemnation by the State.” 92. In this case, the parties have referred to the alleged restriction of freedom of expression under Article 13(2)(b) of the Convention, imposed in an alleged need to protect both the “national security” and “public order.” Although Article 13(2)(b) of the Convention establishes that the exercise of freedom of expression may be subject to further liabilities, provided such restriction is set under the law and it is necessary to ensure, inter alia, the national security and public order, it does not result from the file that Mr. Usón Ramírez has been judgmentd with the purpose of ensuring the protection of the national security or public order. On the contrary, as pointed out above, Mr. Usón Ramírez was judgmentd and found guilty for having committed the crime of slander against the Armed Forces pursuant to Article 505 of the Organic Code of Military Justice. The good that such rule tries to protect is the honor or reputation. Affecting the national security or public order is not in the criminal statute under which Mr. Usón Ramírez was judgmentd. 93. The Tribunal observes that the sole reference to the issue of national security is that which the First Military Tribunal made in the verdict of guilt when it assessed the sanction to be imposed on Mr. Usón Ramírez, pointing out that “the crime committed by the accused attacks the security of the country.”77 However, such assessment does not form part of the grounds for the criminal liabilities of Mr. Usón Ramírez for the crime of slander against the Armed Forces, which had already been declared in the above paragraphs of said judgment. Such reference to national security is found in the chapter “Of Sanctions to be Imposed” in the verdict of guilt, when assessing the corresponding aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the punishment, but not to determine the guilt. On the other hand, the domestic tribunal did not make any considerations regarding the public order to determine the criminal liabilities of Mr. Usón Ramírez. 94. Therefore, given the fact that the crime for which Mr. Usón Ramírez was judgmentd is not explicitly related to the protection of national security or public order, and taking into account that both national security and public order are concepts included in other Articles of the Venezuelan criminal legislation for which Mr. Usón Ramírez was not judgmentd, this Tribunal considers that it is unnecessary to analyze whether the State violated Article 13(2)(b) of the American Convention in this case. 77 Judgment of the First Military Tribunal of Judgment on November 8, 2004, supra note 22, f. 360.