-39147. This general framework was also raised by the Commission, the UN Human Rights Committee, the European Court and the Inter-American Court. 148. As this Court noted above, the Commission stated that "any restriction on freedom of expression must be ... necessary in a democratic society". 16 149. As concerns proportionality of punishment against the right to freedom of expression, in its decision of 3 April 2009 on Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v. Zimbabwe, the Commission considered that even when a State is concerned with ensuring respect for the rule of law, it should nevertheless adopt measures that are commensurate to this objective. The Commission in fact took into consideration the fact that "in law, the principle of proportionality or proportional justice is used to describe the idea that the punishment for a particular offense should be proportionate to the gravity of the offense itself. The principle of proportionality seeks to determine whether, by State action, there has been a balance between protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual and the interests of society as a whole". 17 Thus, according to the Commission, in order to determine that an action is proportional, a number of questions should be asked, such as: Are there sufficient reasons to justify the action?, Is there a less restrictive solution? Does the action destroy the essence of the rights guaranteed by the Charter?" 18 16 Principle II (2) of the Declaration of Principles on the Freedom ofExpression in Africa, adopted by the Commission on 23 October 2002. 17 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers ofZimbabwe v. Zimbabwe, Communication No. 284/03, para 176 18 Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe c. Zimbabwe, Communication No. 284/03, par. 176; by raising these issues when considering the case, the Commission was therefore of the view that the closing of the Newspaper of the Complainants amounted to a violation of their right to the Freedom of Expression ibid., par. 178.