18 comply with the obligation to adopt domestic measures as provided for in Article 2 of the American Convention (supra para. 18). 67. In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration the statements made by the State as to the inadequate criminal legislation regarding this matter, the Court deems that the pertinent criminal definition violates Articles 9 and 13(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. ii) Suitability and purpose of the restriction 68. The Commission argued that the sanction imposed on Mr. Kimel served “the legitimate purpose of protecting the honor of a public official.” Yet, it pointed out that “public officials should be more tolerant of criticism from individuals” and that democratic checks promote the transparency of the actions of the State and foster the accountability of public officials, and that “in a democratic state there is no valid argument which allows exempting the members of the Judiciary from such consideration.” 69. The representatives pointed out that “the American Convention makes no distinction between the [J]udiciary and other public organs, nor does it establish any specific provision regarding the protection of the reputation of judges.” Quite the contrary, “in cases such as this one, the only applicable rule is that which allows restricting freedom of expression for the sake of protecting another person’s rights or reputation.” 70. At this stage of the analysis, in the first place it is necessary to establish whether the restriction is a suitable or adequate means to help achieve a purpose that is in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. 71. As has been established in paragraph 55 supra, judges, as any other individuals, are under the protection afforded by Article 11 of the Convention, which enshrines the right to have one’s honor respected. Besides, Article 13(2)(a) of the Convention sets forth that the “reputation of others” may be the grounds for establishing subsequent liability in the exercise of the freedom of thought and expression. Accordingly, under the provisions of the Convention, the protection of a person’s honor and reputation is a legitimate end. Furthermore, criminal proceedings are suitable as, by threatening to impose sanctions, they serve the purpose of preserving the legal right whose protection is sought; in other words, they may help achieve such purpose. Notwithstanding, the Court notes that this does not imply that in the instant case the criminal proceedings are necessary or proportionate, as will be shown below. iii) Necessity of the measure adopted 72. The Commission considers that “the State may adopt other measures to protect an individual’s privacy and reputation which are less restrictive than the application of a criminal penalty.” In this regard, “[t]he protection of reputation is to be secured only through civil sanctions, where the person injured is a public official or a person who stands in a position of public relevance, or a private individual who voluntarily participates in issues of public interest” and through “laws which ensure the right to reply or rectify one’s statements.” 73. The representatives pointed out that “when a person’s conduct fits into the regular exercise of a right […], the mere existence of a sanction —whatever be its nature— entails the violation of the provisions of the Convention.” Regarding criminal penalties, they argued that “[a]t least as regards criticism of public officials in the performance of their duties or of individuals who voluntarily participate in issues of public interest, resorting to a criminal