13 reference shall be made to the allegations by the representatives which reference disciplinary sanctions imposed on Mr. Usón Ramírez, while in prison, “for having sent a letter to the directors and employees of Radio Caracas Television, showing solidarity with them for the announced termination of the concession to broadcast with open signal” (infra paras. 101 and 102). A) On the alleged need to ensure the protection of the right to the honor and reputation of the Armed Forces by determining any further liabilities to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression 45. Before analyzing the content and scope of the right to freedom of expression and the right to protection of the honor, it must be clarified that Article 1(2) of the Convention sets forth that the right recognized in such instrument correspond to persons, i.e. to human beings and not to institutions such as the Armed Forces. Therefore, when analyzing the alleged conflict of rights in this case, it is not the intention of this Tribunal to determine the scope of the rights that the institution of the Armed Forces could have, since this would be beyond the scope of its competence. However, the Tribunal shall determine whether the rights of Mr. Usón Ramírez as an individual have been violated. Since the justification provided by the State to restrain the right to freedom of Mr. Usón Ramírez was the alleged need to protect the honor and reputation of the Armed Forces, an analysis of the conflict between the individual right of Mr. Usón Ramírez to the freedom of expression, on the one hand, and the alleged right to honor established by the regulations of the Armed Force, on the other hand, shall be made. 46. The right to protection of honor and dignity, under Article 11 of the Convention, involves limits to the interference of private individuals and the State. Therefore, it is legitimate that whoever considers his or her honor affected can resort to judicial means that the State provides for his or her protection.38 47. The freedom of expression, particularly in matters of public interest, “is a cornerstone of the survival of a democratic society” and the Court refers to its jurisprudence established in numerous cases.39 48. The freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions,40 particularly when it interferes with other rights guaranteed by the Convention.41 Article 13(2) of the Convention, prohibiting any prior censorship, also establishes the possibility to require further liabilities for the abusive use of this right. The Court has stated the conditions that the State Parties shall fulfill in order to be able to restrict or limit the right to freedom of expression by 38 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 101; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 134, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 196. 39 Cf. 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 November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, para. 70. See also, Case of Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, paras. 64 a 68 y Case of Perozo et al., supra note 14, para. 116. 40 Cf. 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, supra note 39, para. 36. See also, Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 120, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 14, para. 117. 41 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 56 and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 131.