-38- 143. The Amici curiae go on to suggest that the State can impose restrictions on freedom of expression but that these restrictions should be for legitimate purposes and be required to achieve these objectives. One of the main criteria for determining whether a measure is necessary in a democratic society is to determine if it is proportionate to the set objective. They argue that criminalizing the tarnishing of the image of a public figure is a disproportionate sanction in view of the interest that the Respondent State aims to protect. The Amici curiae add that criminalizing defamation not only disproportionately penalizes the accused, but also has a chilling effect on public discussions on matters of general interest. 144. Based on the foregoing, Counsel for the amici curiae contend that in so far as it provides for criminal sanctions, the Burkinabe information law goes counter to freedom of information. 145. In order to consider the need for a restriction on freedom of expression, the Court notes that such a need must be assessed within the context of a democratic society; it also notes that this assessment must ascertain whether that restriction is a proportionate measure to achieve the set objective, namely, the protection of the rights of others. 146. The general framework under which that need and proportionality should be assessed was also raised in Article 19 (3) of the Covenant which provides that "the enjoyment of freedom . .. comprises special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions which must be clearly laid down by the law and which are necessary: a) to the respect of the rights and reputation of others, b). to safeguard national security, public order, health or public morality". 17