equipment was seized and some members of these indigenous communities were criminally prosecuted. Considering that the raids on the radio stations and the criminal prosecution of their workers constituted a restriction of the indigenous peoples’ right to freedom of expression, this Court will now analyze whether said restriction was legitimate, in light of Article 13(2) of the American Convention. 160. The Court has reiterated in its case law that Article 13(2) of the American Convention stipulates that subsequent liability for the exercise of freedom of expression must meet the following requirements concurrently: (i) be previously established by law, in the formal and material sense; 229 (ii) pursue an objective permitted by the American Convention (“respect for the rights or reputations of others” or “the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morals”), and (iii) be necessary in a democratic society (for which they must meet the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality). 230 161. With respect to the first requirement, strict legality, the Court has stated that restrictions must be previously established by law in order to ensure that these are not left to the discretion of the public authorities. Thus, the criminal definition of a given conduct must be clear and precise, 231 particularly when it concerns matters of criminal law and not of civil law. 232 162. Regarding the proportionality and necessity of the measure, the Court has understood that any restriction imposed on the right to freedom of expression must be proportionate to the legitimate interest that justifies it, and closely tailored to the accomplishment of the legitimate objective, interfering as little as possible with effective exercise of that right. 233 In that sense, it is not sufficient to have a legitimate purpose; the measure in question must also respect the principles of proportionality and necessity in restricting freedom of expression. In other words, “this last step of the examination must consider whether the restriction is strictly proportionate, in a manner such that the sacrifice inherent therein is not exaggerated or disproportionate in relation to the advantages obtained from the adoption of such limitation.” 234 163. As for the analysis of the requirement of legitimate purpose in the case sub judice, the Court notes that the crime of theft applied in the case of unlicensed radio operators is contemplated in Article 246 235 of the Guatemalan Criminal Code, which states: Article 246. Theft. Whoever takes, without due authorization, a movable item, totally or partially owned by another, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to six years. 164. The definition of a “movable item” or asset is found in Article 451 of the Civil Code of Guatemala, which states in subparagraph three that “movable goods are natural forces 229 Cf. The Word "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, paras. 35 and 37, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 85. 230 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 Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 85. 231 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 77, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380, para. 105. 232 Mutatis Mutandis, Cf. Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011, Series C, No. 238, para. 89, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 105. 233 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 123, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 108. 234 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 83, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Supra, para. 108. 235 Observations brief of the State of July 25, 2017 (evidence file, folio 645). -44-