1. Legal Provision 122. In the instant case, the Court finds that the restrictions on freedom of expression contained in the provisions of Section 24 form part of the Act governing the Cybercrime in the Defendant State. It means that such restrictions are established by law. 123. However, the Applicant alleged that the provisions of Section 24 of the “Cybercrime Act” are not only incompatible with Human Rights instruments on freedom of expression but also violate the interpretation of what “in accordance with law” means by containing vague concepts, such as the expression “grossly offensive” that was not defined to establish the parameters that allow the individual to regulate his conduct in accordance with the law. 124. The Applicant concluded that the vague concept, such as the expression “grossly offensive”, has allowed an arbitrary interpretation and application of such provisions. 125. On its turn, the Defendant State has not responded to the Applicant's claim that the provisions of Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act are not clearly defined in order to establish the parameters on what constitutes the expression “gross offense”. 126. As mentioned, it is not enough that the restrictions are established by law, it must be formulated with sufficient precision, that is, it must be sufficiently clear to allow the individual to adapt his conduct to its predictions and still allow the enforcers of the rule to determine which forms of expression are legitimately restricted and which are unduly restricted. 127. The provisions of Section 24 of the law in question typify criminal conduct and define the applicable sanctions. For this reason, in all its ramifications it must be legally well written and its elements clearly defined to avoid any ambiguity in their meanings. 30