128. In this sense, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the case Usón Ramírez Vs. Venezuela, Judgment of November 20th, 2009, declared that “It is the law which shall establish the restrictions to the freedom of information. To that end, any limitation or restriction to such freedom shall be established by the law, both from the formal and from the standpoint material… This involves a clear definition of the incriminatory behavior, setting its elements, and defining the behaviors that are not punishable or the illicit behaviors that can be punishable with non-criminal measures… In this case, the Court observes that the criminal codification of Article 505 of the Organic Code of Military Justice, 49 does not establish the elements that may offend, slander, or disparage.” 129. With a similar understanding, the European Court of Human Rights, in case KHODORKOVSKIY AND LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA17 maintained that: “When speaking of “law” it alludes to the very same concept as that to which the Convention refers… elsewhere when using that term, a concept which comprises statutes as well as bylaws and caselaw and implies qualitative requirements, including those of accessibility and foreseeability. It follows that the offenses and the relevant penalties must be clearly defined in law. This requirement is satisfied when the individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the courts' interpretation of it or by way of appropriate legal advice, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable.” 130. Still in the aforementioned case, Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda, paragraph 136, the African Court reiterated that “The Court recalls its established jurisprudence that the reference to the 'law' in Article 9 (2) of the Charter and in other provisions of the Charter must be interpreted in the light of international human rights standards, which require that domestic laws on which restrictions to rights and freedoms are grounded must be sufficiently clear, foreseeable and compatible with 17 Application No 11082/06 13772/05, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), Court (First Section) 25/07/2013. 31