-36The Court further notes that the legitimate purpose of a restriction is stated in 135. Article 19 (3) (a) and (b) of the Covenant, and consists in respecting the rights and reputation of others or the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality1 5 . In the instant case, the aim of Articles 109, 110 and 111 of the Information 136. Code of Burkina Faso is to protect the honour and reputation of the person or a profession; that of Article 178 of the Criminal Code of Burkina Faso is more specifically to protect the honour and reputation of Magistrates, jurors and assessors in the performance of their duties or in the course of performing the duty. 137. The Court is of the view that this is a perfectly legitimate objective and therefore the limitation thus imposed on the right to freedom of expression by the Burkinabe legislation is consistent with international standards in this area. 138. Having reached the conclusion that the limitation on freedom of expression is provided by the law of the Respondent State and that it responds to a legitimate objective, the Court must now examine if this restriction is necessary to achieve the objective. c. Limitation must be necessary to achieve the set objective 139. In his Application, the Applicant argues that the protection of the reputation of others, including public figures, can be ensured "appropriately and proportionately" by civil law on defamation. He added that because of their severity, the sanctions meted out on him (imprisonment, fines, civil damages, shut down of his newspaper) violate his right to freedom of expression. The Applicant therefore contends that the Respondent State's law violates the right to freedom of 15 Human Rights Committee, Keun-Tae Kim v. The Republic of Korea, Communication No. 57411994, CCPRIC/64/D/57411994, 4 January 1999, para 12.2 36