33 101. In this regard, it should be pointed out that Peru contested the application of a proportionality test because, according to the State, this is derived from legal doctrine or jurisprudence subsequent to the facts (supra para. 81). The Court notes that Article 13(2) of the Convention expressly establishes the requirement to make an analysis of reasonableness when there has been a restriction of freedom of expression. Furthermore, it should be noted that the criteria on proportionality subsequently developed by this Court merely apply a general principle of legal interpretation derived from the general matrix of rationality. Consequently, the weighing is established in Article 13(2) of the Convention itself. 102. The Court has reiterated in its case law that Article 13(2) of the American Convention establishes that the responsibilities ensuing from the exercise of freedom of expression must comply with the following requirements, concurrently: (i) they must be previously established by law, in form and in content;131 (ii) they must respond to a purpose permitted by the American Convention (“respect for the rights or reputation of others” or “the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals”) and (iii) they must be necessary in a democratic society (and must therefore comply with the requirements of appropriateness, necessity and proportionality132). 103. In particular, an evaluation of legitimate restrictions to the right to freedom of expression requires an analysis of necessity (Article 13(2)). Thus, the State, through its agents of justice, is required to make an analysis of reasonableness or a weighing up of the limitations or restrictions to a human right recognized in the Convention (Article13(2)), and also an appropriate reasoning that respects due process of law (Article 8 of the Convention). The specific methodology, argument or analysis is the task of the domestic authorities, provided that it reflects those guarantees. To make this evaluation at the international level, the Court has used different forms of analysis, depending on the rights at stake, but always making an adequate weighing up or balance between the treaty-based rights.133 Consequently, the reasoned analysis of necessity made by this Court derives from the international treaty that it must interpret, 134 together with its consistent case law. 104. For the purposes of this case, concerning the interpretation of subsequent responsibilities for the exercise of freedom of expression in the workplace, the Court will analyze the restriction imposed in light of Article 13(2) of the Convention, taking into account the following requirements, concurrently: (i) classification of Mr. Lagos del Campo’s statements; (ii) legality and purpose, and (iii) necessity and obligation to state reasons.135 1.2.1 Classification of Mr. Lagos del Campo’s statements 105. The Court finds it necessary to determine: (a) whether Mr. Lagos del Campo’s statements were given in his capacity as the workers’ representative (supra, para. 96); (b) whether they were of public interest, and (c) the significance of his statements. 131 Cf. The Word “Law” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, paras. 35 and 37. 132 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, supra, para. 56 and Case of López Lone v. Honduras, supra, para. 168. 133 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra, para. 51, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 127. Article 30 of the American Convention (on the scope of restrictions), indicates that the permitted restrictions “may not be applied except in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established.” Cf. The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights OC-6/86, supra, para. 38. Also, Article 32 of this instrument establishes the relationship between duties and rights, indicating that the rights of each person are limited by the rights of others […]. Cf. Compulsory Membership of an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism OC-5/85, supra, para. 65. 134 135 Cf. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 130.