harm to the expression and disclosure of information, including with respect to the sanctions authorized.” 118. According to the African Court, in the case Loh�� Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso14: “Though in the African Charter, the grounds of limitation to freedom of expression are not expressly provided as in other international and regional human rights treaties, the phrase “Within the law” under the Article 9 (2) provides a leeway to cautiously fit in legitimate and justifiable individual, collective and national interests as grounds of limitation. Here the phrase “within the law” must be interpreted in reference to international norms which can provide grounds of limitations on freedom of expression.” 15 119. Further, as held by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of BREYER v. GERMANY16, that: “In accordance with the law” does not only mean that the measure in question should have some basis in domestic law, but also that the law should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects.” 120. Therefore, it follows from the above that, in order to avoid being in contravention of human rights, a “Law” should not be arbitrary, it should be predictable, reasonable, proportionate and pursue legitimate objectives. 121. The Court then proceeds to verify whether the restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression imposed by the Defendant State through the provisions of Section 24 of the “Cybercrime Act 2015” are provided for by “Law” of international standard, whether they pursue legitimate objectives and whether they are necessary and proportionate to achieve the objectives pursued. 14 Application No. 004/2013. See African Court, Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda, application 003/2014, judgment 24 november 2017; African Commission, communication nº 313/05, Kenneth Good v. The Republic of Botswana. parag. 188. 15 16 50001/12/Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)/Court (Fifth Section) 1/30/2020. 29