-35130. In the instant case, the Court is of the view that restrictions on freedom of expression are indeed provided by law as they are part of the Penal and Information Codes of Burkina Faso. These two instruments therefore represent the law as it exists in Burkina Faso with regard to the right to freedom of expression. 131. The Court is of the view that Articles 109, 110, 111 of the Information Code and 178 of the Penal Code are drafted with sufficient clarity to enable an individual to adapt his/her conduct to the Rules and to enable those in charge of applying them to determine what forms of expression are legitimately restricted and which are unduly restricted. b. The restriction must serve a legitimate purpose 132. The Court is of the view that for a restriction to be acceptable, it does not suffice for it to be provided by law and be written precisely; it must serve a legitimate purpose. 133. As the Commission noted, the Court is of the view that "the reasons for possible limitations must be based on legitimate public interest and the disadvantages of the limitation must be strictly proportionate to and absolutely necessary for the benefits to be gained. 13" 134. In exercising its function of protecting the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter, the Court is of the view that the only legitimate reasons to limit these rights and freedoms are stipulated in Article 27 (2), namely that rights "shall be exercised in respect of the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest. 14" 13 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Media Rights Agenda, Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria, Communication No. 105/93-128/94-130/94-152/96, para 69 14 Ibid para 68