63 ensure “respect for the rights or reputations of others” or “the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.” 208. For the reasons explained below, the Commission considers that a restriction imposed on freedom of expression for the sake of defending the principles of judicial independence and autonomy serves legitimate purposes that qualify as protection of institutional public order. Indeed, the importance and relevance of these basic principles has been explicitly stated throughout this report. 209. Even so, it would be a mistake to maintain that the laws need only serve a legitimate purpose for a restriction on freedom of expression to be permissible. Inter-American case law has consistently held that it has to be established whether the restriction is truly useful, necessary and strictly proportional to achieve that legitimate purpose sought. The paragraphs that follow summarize the basic criteria developed in the literature and case law to advance this third phase of the necessity test. 210. Both the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court have held that the right to freedom of thought and expression has two dimensions: an individual and a social. The individual dimension of this freedom is the right of every person, without discrimination, to seek, impart and receive ideas and information of all kinds and by any means, without undue interference. However, the function of freedom of expression is not confined to the defense of individual rights. From the social standpoint, freedom of expression is a right that is an intrinsic part of democracy.290 The organs of the inter-American human rights system have described the relationship between democracy and freedom of expression as “close,” “indispensable” and “essential.”291 The Inter-American Court held that [f]reedom of expression is a cornerstone upon which the very existence of a democratic society rests. It is indispensable for the formation of public opinion. It is also a conditio sine qua non for the development of political parties, trade unions, scientific and cultural societies and, in general, those who wish to influence the public.292 211. The link between freedom of expression and democracy is so essential that, as the IACHR explained, the very purpose of Article 13 of the Convention is to strengthen the functioning of pluralist and deliberative systems by protecting and promoting the free exchange of ideas and 290 I/A Court H.R. 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 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, paragraph 70; I/A Court H.R. Case of Claude Reyes et al. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, paragraph 85; I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, paragraph 112; I/A Court H.R. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, Paragraph 82; I/A Court H.R. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, paragraph105; I/A Court H.R. Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, paragraph 116. 291 I/A Court H.R. 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 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, paragraph 70; I/A Court H.R. Case of Claude Reyes et al. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, paragraph 85; I/A Court H.R. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, paragraph 116; I/A Court H.R. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, paragraph 86. 292 I/A Court H.R. 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 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, paragraph 70.