103. The Respondent State did not submit on this allegation. *** 104. Article 9(2) of the Charter states that “ [e]very individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.” 105. Article 19 of the ICCPR provides that “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression”, subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and are necessary “for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals”. 106. It follows from these texts that, on the one hand, freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are the foundation of any democratic society, and are closely linked, freedom of expression being the vehicle for the exchange and development of opinions. The two freedoms will therefore be examined together. On the other hand, freedom of expression is not absolute since it must be exercised “within the framework of the law”. It may therefore be subject to restrictions provided for by law, which must, moreover, be for legitimate purposes and be necessary and proportionate. These elements are assessed on a case-by-case basis and in the context of a democratic society. 107. The Court considers that the issue in the instant case is whether the restrictions on the rights to freedom of opinion and of expression, of which the Applicant alleges a violation, are prescribed by law and, if so, whether they are necessary, legitimate and proportionate. 30