17 not allowed to protect the honor and reputation of legal entities, subjects which are not protected under the American Convention.” 60. The representatives also alleged that in this case there had not been a lawful purpose to justify any further liabilities imposed on the alleged victim, highlighting that “we should not lose sight that the American Convention […] protects the rights of persons; i.e. the rights of human beings, and not the rights or corporations, civil associations, or State institutions.” Thus, the representatives stated that “[t]he object of the analysis of this case is not about the right to honor, as a very personal right of a third party, but in any case, the right to his or her reputation, a term generally reserved for legal entities whose support does not lie with the protection of their dignity but with other types of interests, such as interests that are commercial, social, etc.”. 61. The State pointed out that the lawful purpose justifying the imposition of further criminal liabilities goes “beyond the honor or reputation of a certain military personnel, but rather is limited to the defense of the public legitimacy of the military institution and hence, the protection of national security.” Therefore, the State pointed out that “any expressions against public order [or national security] may entail liabilities for those issuing such expressions; such liabilities may be civil, criminal, administrative, etc.”. 62. As pointed out above (supra para. 49), the Tribunal shall determine whether the protection of the reputation of the Armed Forces serves a lawful purpose that justifies a restriction of the freedom of expression and, as the case may be, whether a criminal sanction is suitable to achieve such purpose. 63. To that end, the Court notes that Venezuelan domestic law recognizes that the Armed Forces may, as a State institution or legal entity, be covered by the protection of the right to honor or reputation. Likewise, Article 13(2)(a) of the Convention establishes that the “reputation of others” may be a reason to set further liabilities for exercising the freedom of expression. Although the subject of the right to honor or reputation is the Armed Forces in this case, not a natural person, and hence it is not protect by the Convention, the protection of the right to honor or reputation is considered in the Convention as one of the lawful purposes to justify the restriction of the right to freedom of expression. To that end, the Tribunal reiterates that when analyzing the legitimacy of the purpose in this case (the protection of the right to honor of the Armed Forces) the idea is not to determine whether the Armed Forces have an effective “right” to honor or reputation; the analysis is to determine if such purpose would be legitimate for the purpose of restricting the right to freedom of expression of Mr. Usón Ramírez. 64. Likewise, the Convention does not establish that the only restrictions to individual rights that may be legitimate are the restrictions to protect other individual rights. On the contrary, the Convention also establishes that any restrictions whose purpose is another reason not related to the exercise of individual rights recognized in the Convention are lawful. 65. The European Court of Human Rights has had the opportunity to pronounce judgment about this matter and it has considered that the protection of the right to the reputation of companies, not only of individuals, may be a legitimate purpose to restrict the right to the freedom of expression. In the case of Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom52, for example, the European Court made an analysis in relation to the “need to protect the right to freedom of expression of the plaintiffs and the need to protect the reputation and 52 Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no.68416/01, ECHR 2005-II.