-1232. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: (a) respect for the rights or reputations of others; or (b) the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. 3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence. 217. The Court observes that the representatives claimed that the State should be declared responsible for the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, in relation to Articles (1) and 25 thereof, on the grounds that the right to the truth of the victims and of Colombian society is included in these provisions. 218. As the Court has established previously, and reiterated recently in Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Article 13 of the Convention may be violated under two different circumstances, depending on whether the violation results in the denial of freedom of expression or only imposes restrictions that are not authorized or legitimate.243 Not every breach of Article 13 of the Convention constitutes an extreme violation of the right to freedom of expression, which occurs when the public authorities establish mechanisms to impede the free circulation of information, ideas, opinions or news. Examples of this are prior censorship, the seizure or prohibition of publications and, in general, any procedure that subjects the expression or dissemination of information to the State’s control. In these circumstances, there is a violation of both the right of each individual to express himself and of the right of everyone to be well informed, so that one of the basic requisites of a democratic society is affected.244 219. Regarding, the so-called right to the truth, the Court has understood this as part of the right of access to justice, as a reasonable expectation that the State must satisfy to the victims of human rights violations and to their next of kin, and as a form of reparation. Consequently, in its case law, the Court has examined the right to truth in the context of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, and also in the chapter on other forms of reparation.245 As the Court indicated recently in Blanco Romero v. Venezuela, it does not consider that the right to the truth is an autonomous right embodied in Articles 8, 13, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, as the representatives allege. The right to the truth is subsumed in the right of the victim or the next of kin 243 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 11, para. 68; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 211, para. 77, and 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 del November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, paras. 53 and 54. 244 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 11, para. 68; Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 152, and Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, supra note 243, para. 54. 245 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 10, para. 95; Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 10, para. 78, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 7, para. 297.