characteristics and circumstances, considering the existence of elements and the extent thereof on which the considerations regarding proportionality are to be based”. 161 103. To this effect, the right to rectification or response, provided for in Article 14 of the Convention, may be an appropriate means to protect the right to honor of a person who believes that he or she has been affected by inaccurate or offensive information. Accordingly, the Court held that “[t]he inescapable relationship between these articles can be deduced from the nature of the rights recognized therein since, in regulating the application of the right of reply or correction, the States Parties must respect the right of freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 13. They may not, however, interpret the right of freedom of expression so broadly as to negate the right of reply proclaimed by Article 14(1).” 162 104. On this matter, this Court has reiterated in its case law that Article 13(2) of the American Convention establishes that subsequent liability for the exercise of freedom of expression must comply with the following requirements concurrently: (i) be previously established by law, both formally and materially 163, (ii) respond to a purpose permitted by the American Convention (“respect for the rights or reputations of others” or “the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals”), and (iii) be necessary in a democratic society (and therefore comply with the requirements of appropriateness, necessity and proportionality). 164 105. Regarding the first requirement, strict legality, the Court has established that the restrictions must be previously established in law as a means to ensure that they are not left to the will of public authorities. For this, the criminal definition of a conduct must be clear and accurate, 165 even more so if it is a case of convictions of the criminal law and not of the civil law. 166 106. Article 13(2) of the Convention refers to the second aspect, that is, the permitted or legitimate purposes. Insofar as this case deals with the restriction of the right to freedom of expression due to a complaint filed by a private citizen, the Court will consider only the purpose found in subparagraph (a) of the aforementioned Article, namely, respect for the reputation or rights of others. 167 107. The Court has found that when this legitimate purpose is pursued, it is necessary for the State to weigh up the right to freedom of expression of the person who 161 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, par. 51, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, par. 103. Cf. Demand for the Right of Reply (Arts. 14(1), 1(1) and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-7/86 of August 29, 1986. Series A No. 7. par. 25. 162 Cf. The expression "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A, No. 6, par. 35 and 37, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, par. 104. 163 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra, par. 56, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2020. Series C No. 409, par. 85. 164 165 105. Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, par. 77, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, par. 166 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, par. 77, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, par. 105. 167 Cf. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, par. 106. 37