111. It also underlined that the No. 3 of the Article 19 (3) sets out the specific conditions under which restrictions must be imposed. That is: " the restrictions must be “provided by law”; they may only be imposed for one of the grounds set out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 3. And they must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality ”. (paragraph 22) 112. And highlighted, however, that when the State party imposes certain restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, they should not undermine the right itself (paragraph 21). 113. In turn, the norm of Article 9 of the ACHPR, with regard to freedom of expression, contains a clause that referrers the exercise of this right to the legal system of the States Parties, by stipulating that the exercise of the right must occur “in accordance with the law”. 114. From the analysis combined with the norm of Article 27 (2) of the ACHPR, it follows that the right to freedom of opinion and expression should be exercised within the framework of the law and with due respect for the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest. 115. This means that it is up to the State Member to define the conditions for exercising the right to freedom of expression, which is not absolute. 116. As stated by the Human Rights Committee, “For the purposes of paragraph 3, a norm, to be characterized as “law”, must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly and it must be made accessible to the public. A law may not confer unferred discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution. Law must provide sufficient guidance to those charged with their execution to enable them to ascertain what sorts of expression are properly restricted and what sorts are not (paragraph 25). 27