-41 - "Restrictions should not be too wide-ranging. The Committee noted in its General Comment No. 27 that "restrictive measures must comply with the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function, they must be the least disturbing means among those that might help achieve the desired result and they must be proportionate to the interest to be protected [... ]. The principle of proportionality must be respected not only in the law that institutes the restrictions, but also by the administrative and judicial authorities charged with enforcing the law.24n 154. A similar position was adopted by the European Court in its decision on the case of Tolstoy Miloslavsky vs. the United Kingdom, where it concluded that although damages were provided by law, they are not necessary in a democratic society, "when there is no guarantee, given the magnitude of the combined lethargic state of the domestic rule of law at the time, a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the legitimate goal pursued 25 ". Jurisprudence of the InterAmerican Court is in the same direction 26 . 23 Idem 24 Idem In several cases, the European Court, bearing in mind the earnings of the Complainants held that fines and/or damages charged to them were disproportionate when compared to the damage endured, see for instance, ECHR, Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 68416/01 (2005); ECHR, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 18139/91 (1995); ECHR, Koprivica v. Montenegro, Application No. 41158/09 (2011); ECHR, Filipovic v. Serbia; Application No. 27935/05 (2007). It further takes into account the deterrent effect that such disproportionate fines and damages could have on newspapers in the country. For instance, in the case of Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. The United Kingdom, the European Court held that the imposition of excessive penalties had a deterrent effect on the exercise of the freedom of expression and was of the view that the granting of excessive damages for defamation constituted a violation of Article 10 ofthe European Convention ofHuman Rights, ECHR, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 18139/91 (1995), para 55 26 "In a democratic society punitive power is exercised only to the extent that is strictly necessary in order to safeguard essential legally protected interests from the more serious attacks which may impair or endanger them. The opposite would result in the abusive exercise of the punitive power of the State", Tristant Donoso v. Panama, Series C, No. 193 (2009), para 119; the Court further clarified as follows; ''the Court does not deem any criminal sanction regarding the right to inform or give one's opinion to be contrary to the provisions of the convention; however, this possibility should be carefully analysed, pondering the extreme seriousness of the conduct of the individual who expressed the opinion, his actual malice, the characteristics of the unfair damage caused, and other information which shows the absolute necessity to resort to criminal proceedings as an exception. At all stages the burden of proof must fall on the Party who brings the criminal proceedings", Ibid, para 120 25 ;7 41 ~~ /]~ (L_~