161. In this section, the Court will examine the alleged prohibition to leave the country imposed on Mr. Álvarez on December 15, 2004, pursuant to subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 22 of the American Convention. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 162. The Commission alleged the lack of motive, necessity and proportionality in the measures adopted by the State to restrict Mr. Tulio Álvarez’s travel outside the country, which were in force for approximately eighteen months during the criminal trial. 163. It also recalled that Tulio Álvarez was granted permission to leave the country on three occasions, on condition that he appear in court on the Monday following his return. The alleged victim also had to undertake lengthy procedures to obtain authorization each time he needed to travel outside the country, a measure that was extended beyond the period of execution of the sentence. 164. The Commission considered that the precautionary measure barring Mr. Álvarez from leaving the country was an arbitrary restriction of his right to freedom of movement and residence established in Article 22 of the Convention. Furthermore, it purpose was punitive, and therefore incompatible with the principle of presumption of innocence. 165. The representatives recalled that, from December 16, 2004, until December 20, 2007, Tulio Álvarez was subject to a precautionary measure barring him from leaving the country imposed by the court conducting the criminal trial, at the request of Willian Lara’s legal representatives. Subsequently, in December 2007, that measure was replaced by a restriction on his freedom of movement, which required him to notify the judge before leaving the country. 166. The representatives pointed out that the reason given by the judge for imposing the precautionary measure barring travel outside the country was insufficient, because he did not explain how or why this measure was essential to safeguard the criminal proceedings against Tulio Álvarez. Nor did the judge justify the objective reasons for which he considered it proportionate to limit his freedom of movement. The representatives emphasized that restricting freedom of movement and barring travel outside the country bears no relation to the gravity of the crime of defamation. 167. The representatives asked the Court to rule that the State violated its obligations under Articles 8(2) and 22 of the Convention, for infringement of the presumption of innocence and the arbitrary restriction of freedom of movement, stemming from the measure of prohibition from leaving the country to the detriment of the victim. 168. The State pointed out that the precautionary measure barring Mr. Alvarez from leaving the country was imposed by the Seventh Trial Court, in consideration that he was a flight risk which, in a democratic society, was a necessary reason for restricting movement under the terms of the Convention. Furthermore, the court that heard the case considered that there was a real possibility that Mr. Tulio Álvarez might leave the country and evade the proceedings, bearing in mind his particular characteristics. 169. It further argued that the domestic judge considered that a punishable act had been committed that warranted a prison term, and that the crime in question was defined and 33