15 62. The first part of the test requires that limitations on freedom of expression be previously 72 and expressly, specifically, precisely and clearly established in a law, both in the formal and material 73 senses of the word. When laws establish limitations on freedom of expression that may lead to a person’s deprivation of liberty, the Inter-American Court has held that the requirements of the principle of legality must be strictly adhered to: “if such restriction or limitations are under criminal law, it is important to 74 observe the strict requirements characteristic of the criminal codification to satisfy the principle of legality,” inasmuch as “ambiguity in the formulation of criminal definitions generates doubts and opens the door to the discretion of the authorities, particularly undesirable where the criminal liability of a person is to determined and punished with sentences which severely affect fundamental rights, such as life or 75 freedom.” This derives in the need to “use strict and unequivocal terms, clearly restricting any punishable 76 behaviors,” which entails a “clear definition of the incriminatory behavior, setting its elements, and defining the behaviors that are not punishable or the illicit behaviors that can be punishable with non-criminal 77 measures.” It is relevant to recall as well that the Commission has established that when expression involves matters of public interest, subsequent imposition of liability must be through civil and not criminal 78 law. 63. The Commission notes that the basis for the conviction of Carlos and Pablo Memoli in the instant case was the crime of slander, which at the time was defined by law as a criminal offense under Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Argentina as follows: “He who dishonors or discredits another person, shall be punished with a fine of one thousand five hundred to ninety thousand pesos or a prison term of one month to one year.” In the case of Kimel Vs. Argentina, the Inter-American Court had the opportunity to examine this provision, and found that the definition of the criminal offense was “inadequate” and therefore violatory of both Article 13 and Article 9 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 and 2 of the 79 treaty. In order to come to that conclusion, the Court took into account the State of Argentina’s own recognition of this, in stating that “the lack of sufficient accuracy in the criminal legislation punishing defamation and preventing the infringement of the right to freedom of thought and expression entails the State’s failure to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic measures as provided for in Article 2 of the 72 IA Ct of HR, Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Articles 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, pars. 39-40; IA Ct. of HR, Case of Palamara Iribarne Vs. Chile. Judgment November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, par. 79; IA Court of HR, Case of Herrera Ulloa Vs. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, par. 120; IA Ct. of HR, Case of Tristan Donoso Vs. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, par. 117; IACHR. 1994 Annual Report, Chapter V: Report on Compatibility between Contempt of Court Laws and the American Convention on Human Rights. Title IV. OAS/Ser. L/V/II.88. doc. 9 rev. February 17, 1995, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/94span/cap.V.htm; IACHR. Report No. 11/96, Case No. 11.230. Merits, Francisco Martorell, Chile. May 3, 1996, par. 55, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/96eng/Chile11230.htm; IACHR. Arguments before the Inter-American Court in the case of Ricardo Canese Vs. Paraguay. Transcripts at: IA Ct. of HR, case of Ricardo Canese Vs. Paraguay. Judgment August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, par. 72. a), available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_111_esp.pdf. 73 In this regard, the Inter-American Court definition in Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 is applicable, according to which the expression “laws” does not mean any legal norm, but rather general normative acts approved by the constitutionally established and democratically elected legislative body, pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Constitution. 74 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Uson Ramirez Vs. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, par. 55. 75 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Kimel Vs. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, par. 63. 76 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Uson Ramirez Vs. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, par. 55. 77 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Uson Ramirez Vs. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, par. 55. 78 IACHR, Inter-American Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, Principle 10, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/basicos13.htm. 79 par. 67. IA Ct. of HR, Case of Kimel Vs. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177,