100. The Court has also considered that both dimensions are equally important and should be guaranteed simultaneously in order to give full effect to the right to freedom of thought and expression under the terms of Article 13 of the Convention. 106 B.2. Permitted restrictions to freedom of expression and the application of subsequent liability 101. The Court has reiterated that freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Article 13(2) of the American Convention, which prohibits prior censorship, also provides for restrictions for the abuse of this right, through the imposition of subsequent liability, to ensure “respect for the rights or reputation of others” (subparagraph “a” of Article 13(2). Nevertheless, these limitations are exceptional in nature and should not prevent, beyond what is strictly necessary, the full exercise of freedom of expression or become a direct or indirect mechanism of prior censorship.107 Thus, the Court has established that liability may be imposed subsequently, if the right to honor and reputation has allegedly been harmed.108 102. Indeed, Article 11 of the Convention establishes that everyone has the right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. The Court has pointed out that the right to honor “recognizes that everyone has the right to be respected and that no one may be the object of unlawful attacks against his honor or reputation and imposes on the States the duty to afford protection against such attacks. In general terms, this Court has indicated that the right to honor is related to self-esteem and self-worth, whereas reputation refers to the opinion that others have about someone.”109 103. In this regard, the Court has recognized that, “both freedom of expression and the right to honor, which are both rights protected by the Convention, are extremely important; hence both rights must be guaranteed in a way that ensures that they coexist harmoniously.”110 Each fundamental right must be exercised respecting and safeguarding the other fundamental rights.111 Thus, the Court considers that “the solution to the conflict arising between some rights requires the examination of each case in accordance with its specific characteristics and circumstances, considering the existence of elements and the extent thereof on which the considerations regarding proportionality are to be based.”112 104. Accordingly, the Court has reiterated in its jurisprudence that, pursuant to Article 13(2) of the American Convention, the imposition of 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 sense113; (ii) pursue an objective permitted by the American Convention (“respect for the rights and reputation of others” or “the protection of national security, public order, public health, or public morals”), and (iii) be necessary in a democratic society (and satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality).114 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, para. 67; Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017, Series C, No. 340, para. 89. 107 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 120; and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, para. 110. 108 Case Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013, Series C, No. 265, para. 123. 109 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, para. 57; and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, Series C, No. 259, para. 286. 110 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, para. 51; and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 127. 111 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, para. 75; and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, para. 127. 112 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, para. 51; and Case of Granier et al. v. Venezuela, para. 144. 113 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. 114 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, para. 56; and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, para. 102. 106 21